The court affirmed that references of industrial disputes by the government require a prima facie satisfaction that a dispute exists, and amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are restricted unless due diligence is shown.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner, Delhi International Airport Limited (“DIAL”), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing References dated 04.08.2017, 24.08.2018 and 01.04.2019 (“Impugned References”) in W.P.(C) Nos. 14304/2025, 15908/2025 and 15923/2025 respectively, issued by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”), whereby the industrial dispute raised by the Respondent No.1 Association/ Cambata Aviation Workers Association has been entertained and directions have been issued for consideration of reinstatement and continuity of service. Vide the consequential order dated 04.06.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. II, New Delhi (“CGIT”), the Petitioner’s application/s seeking amendment of its written statement before the learned CGIT, had been dismissed. The aforesaid Impugned References and Impugned Order have been assailed by way of the present petitions.

2. The core grievance of the Petitioner is that the workmen of the Respondent No.1 Association were never employed by DIAL, but by the Respondent No. 3/ Cambata Aviation Private Limited (“CAPL”), a ground-handling service provider, and therefore, no industrial dispute could exist between DIAL and the said workmen. The Petitioner contends that the Impugned References itself are fundamentally misconceived, and the continuation of proceedings before the CGIT amounts to an abuse of process.

3. The Petitioner is further aggrieved by the Impugned Order passed by the learned CGIT, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for amendment of its written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is the Petitioner’s case that the proposed amendment was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute, and for placing on record its foundational objection regarding the non-maintainability of the Respondent No.1’s claim before the said forum. The Petitioner challenges the said order on the ground that the refusal to permit the amendment has caused serious prejudice and vitiates the continuation of the proceedings before the learned CGIT.

4. The Respondent No.1 Association, on the other hand, contends that the arrangement between DIAL and the Respondent workmen was in the nature of a contractual engagement through an intermediary, and that, in reality, the work performed by them was under the control and supervision of DIAL and was an integral part of its operations. It is their case that DIAL was the principal employer of their services and that the dispute raised by them raises substantial questions relating to their employment and termination. According to the Respondent No.1 Association, the Impugned References made by the appropriate Government are based on the existence of a genuine industrial dispute and therefore calls for an adjudication on merits.

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. The Petitioner/ DIAL is a company incorporated under the laws of India, which came into existence by the way of the Policy of the Government of India for a Public Private Partnership Model, which thereafter entered into an Operation Management Development Agreement (“OMDA”) with the Airports Authority of India. As per the said Agreement, DIAL has been awarded an exclusive concession to develop, finance, design, construct, modernize, operate and regulate the use of the Indira Gandhi International Airpor