INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 11-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES 
UNION AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
B 
APRIL 11, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.j 
Labour Laws : 
C 
Coll/ract labou~egu/arisation of-Where the workmen who are 
covered by the High Court judgment, their regularisation to take effect from 
the date of the High Court judg111e11t-l¥here the matter is not covered by the 
High Court judgment but by judgmellt of Supreme Court abolishing contract 
labour, such workmen to be regulmised from the date of tl1e judgment viz. 
December-9, 1996-Directions issued. 
D 
Air India Statutory C01poration Etc. \'. United Labour Union & Ors. 
Etc., [1996] 9 SCALE 70 and Masih Charan & 01~·. v. U.0.1. & Ors, W.P. 
(C) No. 219/1995, decided on March 10, 1997, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2987-89 
E 
of 1997 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.86 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 1494/89, 2362/90 and 504 of 1991. 
T.R. An<lhyarujana, Solicitor General, Ms. InJra Jaisingh, K.K. 
F Singhvi, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anita Shenoi, Brij Bhushan, Vineet Kumar, 
B.N. Singhvi, Sanjay Singh\~, R.N. Keshwani, P.K. Manohar, Ms. Nina 
Gupta, K.B. Swamy, Ms. Kiran and Neeraj Sharma for the appearing 
Parties. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
These appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the 
Bombay High Court made on March 27, 1996 in W.P. Nos. 
1494/89, 
H 2362/90 and 504/1991. The appellant-workmen came to be employed as 
868 
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES UNION>. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA 869 
sweepers in International Airport, National Airport Cargo Complex and A 
Import Warehouse. Consequent upon the abolition of the contract labour 
system with effect from December 9, 1976 in the light of the judgment of 
this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Etc. v. United Labour Union 
& Ors. Etc., (1996) 9 SCALE 70 they are also entitled to be regularised 
with effect from the date of the judgment of the High Court and where the B 
matter is not covered by the judgment with effect from the date of the 
judgment rendered on December 6, 1996, as held in Masih Charan & Ors 
v. U.0.1. & Ors., in Writ Petition (C) No. 219/1995 dated March 10, 1997. 
Shri Singhvi and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel have 
brought to our notice that the workmen have been working for a long time. 
Though the regularisation of their services with effect from the date of 
judgment was given by this Court since they have come in appeal by virtue 
c 
of that part of the judgment in these cases viz., they are not entitled to the 
benefit from the date of the abolition of the contract labour system, the 
same benefit may be given from the date of the judgment of the High D 
Court. With a view to maintain uniformity in the orders passed, we think 
that the procedure adopted earlier would be the feasible one in the fact-
situation, namely, where the matter is covered by the judgment of the High 
Court, the regularisation will be with effect from the respective dates. 
Where the matter is not covered by the judgment of the High Court, i.e., 
in the case filed under Article 32, it operates from the date of the judgment 
of this Court in Air India Statutory Corpn. Etc. v. United Labour Union & 
Ors., (1996) 9 SCALE 70. However, since they have been working for a 
long time prior to the abolition of the contract labour system where the 
principle of pension and gratuity scheme is in operation, the authorities are 
directed to compute the previous length of service from the date of 
appointment by contract till they retire from service for the purpose of all 
retiral benefits. However, if there is any dispute as to the date from which 
they are working, it is always open to the respondents to verify the same 
E 
F 
with prior notice to the respective workmen or accredited agents, as the 
case may be, and then decide that particular controversy in an individual G 
case. 
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 
CA. 2990@ S.L.P. (C) No. 14116196 
H 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted. 
This controversy also involves three type of workmen, namely, 
sweepers, canteen workers and cabin catering cleaners. As far as the 
sweepers are concerned, it is covered by the judgment of this Court in Air 
India Statut01y C01p11. Etc. v. United Labour U11io11 & Ors., (1996} 9 SCALE 
B 70. Therefore, they a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.