SUBHASH CHAND Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) This writ petition is filed by petitioner No.2 who had worked with Indian Airlines/ Respondent as MT helper, helper (Engg.) helper etc. It is the case of the petitioners that they had worked on causal basis for periods ranging from 100 days to 500 days. The matter regarding regularisation of such casual workers working in Indian Airlines came up before the Division Bench and after exhausted dealing with the problem, the writ petition being CWP No.4113/94 was disposed of vide judgment dated 9.5.1997 giving certain directions therein. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:

(3.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition alleging that after the aforesaid judgment, they approached Indian Airlines within 15 days of the date of the order and made repeated representations for their regularisation but no response has been received. It is also stated that respondents had entered into an agreement dated 12.2.1996 with M/s Neha International for deployment of labour on casual basis and the said agreement was expiring on 12.2.1999. This petition was filed in March 1999 in which direction is sought to the effect that respondents should not renew agreement dated 12.2.1996 and further that respondents to give casual/ adhoc employment to the petitioners in terms of judgment and order dated 9.5.1997. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that respondents are strictly adhering to the directions contained in order dated 9.5.1997 in CWP No.4113/94 and other connected writ petitions. It is also pointed out that petitioners belong to select panel of 20.11.1990 and there are other persons senior to them and petitioners cannot be allowed to by-pass those candidates who are rightfully entitled to be considered before them on the seniority list of the select panel. As far as contract with M/s Neha International is concerned, it is stated that the said contract is for loading/unloading activities only and no contract exists for Helper(MT)/Helper(Catering) in which categories these petitioners are empanelled. Therefore according to the respondents, rights of the petitioners are not prejudiced at all in having the contract with M/s Neha International. It is also submitted that there is no notification issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act prohibiting grant of such a contract which is being granted to M/s Neha International.