Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RENDU BHATNAGAR, J
AIR INDIA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
AIRPORT EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD.) AND ANR – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9924/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Amit Mishra, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Mr. Azeem Samuel, Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Shrijeta Pratik
For the Respondents: Mr. Braj Kishore Roy
The court emphasized that wage entitlement disputes must be preceded by a clear determination of the employer-employee relationship, with adequate judicial reasoning required from the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - Challenge to maintainability of application - Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to writ petition - Court emphasizes the requirement for well-reasoned orders and the importance of recognizing the nature of jurisdiction under the ID Act - Determination of employer-employee relationship is pivotal for adjudication of wage parity claims; the absence of necessary reasoning renders the Tribunal's order unsustainable. (Paras 1, 36, 37)
(B) Labour Law - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 - Rule 25(2)(v)(a) - Rule set conditions for wage parity - The court discussed the binding nature of an order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner on wage entitlement and the limits of principal employer liability. (Paras 5, 24-25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's ruling dismissing its application regarding non-maintainability of a wage parity claim made by the Airport Employees' Union on behalf of contract workers employed under a contractor for Air India. The Tribunal held such a claim maintainable, relying on an earlier ruling by the Deputy Labour Commissioner which recognized wage parity based on the similarity of work.
Findings of Court:
The petition highlighted critical flaws in the Tribunal's reasoning, including failure to adequately address jurisdictional challenges and a lack of detailed analysis necessary for adjudication. The impugned order was deemed cryptic and lacking in substantive detail, prompting a remand for fresh consideration.
Issues: The primary legal issues included the scope of Section 33C(2) and whether a valid employer-employee relationship existed justifying the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that while the Tribunal has duties to execute claims under Section 33C(2), it must ensure that jurisdiction is properly established. A founding of rights or obligations cannot pivot on administrative directives alone without a proper adjudication establishing such relationships.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tribunal’s dismissal of maintainability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments highlighting legal infirmities in tribunal's ruling. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. respondent's defense of tribunal's maintainability assessment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court's evaluation of tribunal's reasoning and jurisdiction. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. court's ruling on remand for proper adjudication. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 6. conclusion of writ petition and direction for appearance. (Para 38 , 39) |
RENU BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in LCA No. 10 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s application assailing the maintainability of an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’) filed by Respondent No.1, the Airport Employees Union.
2. The petitioner, Air India Limited (formerly Indian Airlines Limited), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of carriage of passengers and cargo by air within India and abroad. For the purpose of its ground handling operations at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-II, New Delhi, the petitioner had entered into a contract dated 12.02.1996 with M/s. Neha International (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent No. 2’) for providing services of loading and unloading of passenger baggage, as well as handling import and export cargo for various international and domestic flights.
3. The said contract, executed on a principal-to-principal basis, was extended from time to time and finally expired on 10.10.2002. During the subsistence of the contract, the loading and unloading work for these flights was performed exclusively by the contract labour engaged by Respondent No. 2, and no regular employees of the petitioner were deployed for such tasks.
4. After the expiry of the contract, Respondent No. 1, Airport Employees Union, representing 183 contract workers employed by Respondent No. 2, approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘DLC’), by filing a petition under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CLRA’), seeking parity of wages and service conditions with the regular loaders/helpers of Air India.
5. Vide order dated 06.08.2007, the DLC held that the 183 contract workers, who were members of Respondent No. 1 Union, were entitled to wages and other service conditions equivalent to those of the regular loaders/helpers of Air India at the entry level, and that Terminal I-B and Terminal-II were to be treated as “one establishment.” The relevant portion of the order dated 06.08.2007 passed by the DLC is reproduced as under:
“The above mentioned two questions therefore, are answered as under:
1. The work of baggage handling performed by 183 contractor’s workers enumerated in the application dated 02.02.2001 of the applicant union is of the similar nature as performed by the regular workers of Indian Airlines Ltd.
2. Terminal II and Terminal I-B of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi is a single establishment, where India Airlines Ltd. carries on its operations.
In view of the foregoing the one hundred and eighty three (183) workers whose particulars are contained in the application dated 02.02.2001 of the applicant union are entitled to same wages and other condition of service as applicable to the permanent loaders/helpers of the Indian Lines Ltd. at the entry level.”
6. On the basis of the aforesaid administrative order, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 33C (2) of t
