The main legal point established is that the respondent's practice of engaging workers for short durations, despite the permanent and perennial nature of the work, constituted unfair labour practice, and the respondent was directed to frame a Scheme for workers' absorption.

Elipe Dharmarao , J.

All these matters are inextricably interconnected with each other and hence all these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the appellants in the writ appeals and the petitioners in the writ petitions are hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and the Management of Air India and other officials of Air India are commonly referred to as the respondent-Management.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent Management operates international flights and several flights of Air India originate or transit through Madras Airport and a number of workers are employed by Air India in the catering department for the purpose of cleaning the seats in the aircrafts, arranging the blankets and removing the wastages inside the aircraft etc. and for this purpose, Air India was engaging workmen on daily rated basis for a period of 90 days and terminating them from service thereafter; that in the vacancies so caused, once again Air India calls for applications from the Employment Exchange and again engages them for 90 days and thus repeats the same process. The petitioners would submit that the work requirement for Air India is one of permanent and perennial nature and Air India engages workmen for short durations to deny them the benefit of permanency and other consequential benefits.

4. The further case of the petitioners is that a number of workmen who were similarly engaged in the year 1985 raised an Industrial Dispute against their non-employment and the Industrial Tribunal upheld the contentions of the workmen and directed that a Scheme be framed for permanent absorption of these workers and as against the said Award of the Labour Court, the Management filed a writ petition and entered into a settlement with the Union that raised the said dispute that it will absorb the workmen covered by the Settlement and thereafter did not forward any Scheme for permanent absorption of the workmen and these petitioners are not members of the said Union and that Settlement itself was only to cover the workmen who had the benefit of the Award.

.5. The petitioners would further submit that they were registered with the Employment Exchanges and they were called for a selection process which was held in Kancheepuram and the petitioners were made to undergo physical endurance tests and only after that they were selected and in fact, one of the candidates by name C.Mohan, who participated in the physical endurance test died during the selection process; that after the petitioners were selected, they were given orders of appointment wherein they have specifically said that the employment would not continue beyond 90 days; that when the petitioners were ousted from service, once again they have to reapply and register themselves with the Employment Exchange and lose their seniority in the Exchange for this employment of 90 days; that it is not as if the work done by the petitioners has ceased; that what the Management of Air India does is after ousting the petitioners from work, they once again goes to the Employment Exchange and selects a new batch of candidates and use their service for 90 days and again oust them. With such averments, some of the petitioners sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Management not to indulge in the practice of employing persons such as the petitioners only for 90 days and ousting them thereafter and also direct the respondent Management to frame a Scheme for regular absorption of the workmen like the petitioners and consequently direct the Employment Exchange Officer to maintain the seniority of the petitioners in the Employment Exchange so as to preserve their seniority.

6. Earlier, some of the petitioners have raised Industrial Disputes in I.D.Nos.22 of 1991 and 39 of 1991 before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and the Tribunal, after conducting a thorough enquiry, has ordered regul