IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 23.11.2022

PRONOUNCED ON

: 20.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

W.A.Nos.3003 and 3007 of 2019, 607, 1020, 1023 and 1024 of 2020, 1761 of 2021

and 2529 of 2022

and

C.M.P.Nos.19392, 11019 and 19395 of 2019, 8425, 12459, 12465 and 12467 of 2020

and 19866 of 2022

and

Cont.P.Nos.956 and 961 of 2021

in

Sub.A.Nos.285 and 286 of 2021

W.A.No.3003 of 2019:-

1.E.Deivasagayam

2.S.Devan

3.A.Sagaya Kaurnakaran

4.A.Guru

5.V.Marimuthu

... Appellants

/vs./

1.The Union of India,

represented by its Secretary,

Ministry of Labour,

Sharm Mantralaya,

New Delhi 110 001.

1/37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2.Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central),

26, Haddows Road,

Shastri Bhavan,

Chennai 6.

3.Airports Authority of India,

represented by its Director,

Chennai Airport,

Meenambakkam,

Chennai 600 027.

4.Management

Bright Shine Services

No.2, First Floor,

Sarathy Street, Pallavaram,

Chennai 600 043.

5.M/S. Media Solution,

represented by its Authorised Signatory,

M.O.Amanullah Marikar,

S 95, III Phase,

II Floor,

Spencer Plazza,

Chennai 600 002.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated

11.06.2019 in W.P.No.21515 of 2013 is illegal, arbitrary contrary to law insofar as

directing to maintain status quo in respect of employees, who are actually working only

till disposal of the conciliation proceedings and not giving direction to the first

respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication before the competent authority as illegal,

arbitrary and contrary to law and liable to be set aside to that extend.

2/37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Appellants

: Mr.S.Balan Haridas

For R1

: Mr.S.Diwakar

Senior Panel Counsel Central Government

For R3

: Mr.R.Parthiban

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KUMARESH BABU, J.)

The instant writ appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned

single Judge, wherein he had upheld the notification issued by the Central Government

abolishing contract labour system in trolley retrieval in the establishment of Airport

Authority of India at Chennai.

2.There are four parties to the batch of these writ appeals. They are a) Airport

Authority of India represented by its Director, Chennai Airport, who is the employer, b)

Tamil Nadu Airport Workers Union - they represent the contract workers, who were

employed as trolley retrieval workers till 2004, C) Tamil Nadu General Workers Union

representing 19 contract workers, who were employed during 2004 and d) 65 Contract

Workers represented by the 5 men committee, who had been employed during 2004.

3.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

3/37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.The Airport Authority of India, a Public Sector undertaking created by a statute

is undertaking construction, operations of Airports, civil enclaves and their effective

management and administration. As a part of its function towards baggage handling and

movements for the convenience of passengers in the terminals, provides trolleys, which

can be easily used by the passengers at the terminals. The said facility is available free of

cost. However, the trolleys used by the passengers are dropped at their convenience at

various places inside the Airport as well as outside the Airport. Therefore, the Airport

Authority of India had to employ persons for retrieval of the trolleys, which shall be

placed at the convenient place for the passengers' use. Instead of appointing such trolley

retrieval workers, directly the Airport Authority of India chose to enter upon into the

contracts with private persons.

5.It is the case of the workers represented by both the Unions that the Airport

Authority of India had been engaging the services