Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11828
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Air India – Appellant
Versus
Contract labourers – Respondent
WRIT PETITIONS No. 6362, 6379, 6382, 6385, 6389, 6479, 6487, 6559, 6561, 6563, 6572, 6574 and 6575 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. V. Uma Devi, Sri K. Aravind Kumar, Sri Gade Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri V. Hari Haran, Sri V. Kiran Kumar
Gratuity is a statutory obligation of the principal employer toward contract workers, reinforcing employer responsibilities under labor laws.
Headnote:(A) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 21 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Gratuity claims by contract labourers against principal employer for period worked - Labour laws stipulate principal employer's duty to uphold worker rights and implement statutory benefits, including gratuity - The court finds no merit in the arguments presented by Air India as a principal employer. (Paras 5-9)
(B) Principal Employer Obligations - Air India classified as a model employer - while minimum wages are paid, there remains a duty to pay gratuity as per statutory requirements. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, contract labourers of M/s M.K.R. Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Works, claimed gratuity from Air India after contract completion due to non-payment, asserting the right under applicable labour laws.
Findings of Court:
The court concludes that Air India, as a statutory public employer, should fulfill its responsibilities towards employee benefits, including gratuity, citing the necessity for model employer conduct.
Issues: Whether Air India is liable for gratuity under its obligations as a principal employer and the applicability of contract labour laws in this circumstance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarifies that while Air India's role is supervisory, it also entails meeting statutory labour obligations to ensure fair treatment and dignity of workers.
Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed, affirming the lower authorities’ findings in favor of the claimants.
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 requirement.
