Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11820
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Air India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority – Respondent
Writ Petitions No. 6362|6379|6382|6385|6389|6479|6487|6559|6561|6563|6572|6574|6575 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. V. Uma Devi, Sri K. Aravind Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri Gade Praveen Kumar, Sri V. Hari Haran, Sri V. Kiran Kumar
Principal employers must uphold statutory obligations, including gratuity, beyond mere supervision in labor law.
Headnote:(A) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 21 - Claims for gratuity by contract labourers working for a principal employer. The Court ruled that, despite the arguments of Air India regarding the nature of the contract, the claim for gratuity must be acknowledged as a legal right under applicable labor laws since the principal employer has obligations beyond mere supervision. (Para 8)
(B) Principle of employer responsibilities - The Court found that as a public sector entity, Air India had a duty to act as a model employer, encompassing compliance with labor law requirements including gratuity. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Thirteen Writ Petitions challenged the ruling of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, wherein contract labourers sought gratuity from Air India. Air India contended they were merely a contractor's firm without liability for gratuity payments.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the lower authority’s ruling that contract workers were entitled to gratuity from Air India, affirming their statutory obligations as a government undertaking.
Issues: The main issues involved were the applicability of gratuity payments under the Contract Labour Act and the responsibilities of public sector employers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a principal employer's duty extends beyond supervision, affirming workers' rights to statutory benefits.
Result: The Writ Petitions were dismissed.
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for petitioners, Sri K. Aravind Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Gade Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General, Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 and Sri V. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5.
2. All these Writ Petitions were originally filed challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. Consequently, petitioners prayed to set aside the orders passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authority i.e., Asst. Labour Commissioner for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, subsequently.
3. Though thirteen Writ Petitions are filed against each order, since the issue involved is one and the same, they are being dealt with taking them as a single batch.
4. The thirteen Contract labourers, who were the employees of the contractor i.e. M/s M.K.R. Air conditioning & Refrigeration Works, have raised claims against the 'Principal employer' i.e. Indian Airlines for payment of gratuity for the period they worked on the premises of the Central Training Establishment at Ferozguda, Secunderabad-11, for Air India on behalf of Indian Airlines.
5. The factual matrix of the cases is as under:
Indian Airlines Limited called for tenders for maintenance of air-conditioning-and-refrigeration-related work. In the process, M/s M.K.R.Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Works was initially awarded contract for one year and subsequently, the period was extended. During the said period, workers in question have not raised any dispute with regard to their payment or any other benefits that they were entitled to. Subsequently, however, they filed a Claim Petition against Air India, claiming gratuity, after completion of contract before the Controlling Authority. They stated that Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act 1970 also includes the amount of gratuity and since gratuity has not been paid to them for the period they were engaged by the principal employer, i.e., the Air India, they are entitled for the same.
6. In the claim petitions, Air India, in its counter, however, submitted that it is a works contract and not a manpower supply contract. Therefore, it is the sole discretion of the contractor i.e. M/s M.K.R. Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Works, to engage the workers for the work entrusted to them and there was absolutely no involvement of Air India to specify even the number of employees or other related issues to the contractor and added that its role as a principal employer, is confined only to supervise the payment of wages to the labour employed by the contractor for completion of works contract as per the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 . Petitioner also, initially, submitted before the Controlling Authority that as per the definition of ‘employer’ the contractor - M/s. M.K.R. Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Works, is the ‘employer’ of petitioner, as defined under Section 2 (F) of the Payment of Gratuity Act . It is also contended that the Controlling Authority for the Air India is only the Central Government and not others, as it comes under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It is further stated that ‘employer’ is clearly defined under Section 2 (F) of the Payment of Gratuity Act which also defined ‘employee’ and they added that primary element which may have to be required to be examined/clarified by the Controlling Authority is ‘whether applicant was an ‘employee’ of the contractor - M/s M.K.R.Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Works or Air India, which engaged their services temporarily’.
They further countered the contention of the rival submissions before the Controlling Authority that Air India has only paid bonus besides 35 per extra minimum wages to the contract labour only in pursuance of the contract entered into with the contractor but, it is not, however, a statutory requirem
