AIR INDIA LTD Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions impugn the common award dated 5th May, 2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in three industrial disputes having identical reference, with only the names of the workmen in each being different, as under:

(2.) The matter in controversy in all the three writ petitions is informed to be same and the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the workmen respondents in all the petitions have made common submissions with reference to the paper book in WP(C)14178/2004.

(3.) The claim of the workmen in each of the three cases before the CGIT was that they had been employed with the respondent No. 1 Air India on casual basis in the Air India Ground Service Department Canteen, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi; that their employment with the respondent No. 1 Air India was through the respondent Chefair Flight Catering which is a unit of the respondent Hotel Corporation of India (HCI) and which is a Government Corporation. It was further their claim that the said canteen is established and maintained by Air India under the Provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948; that vide notification dated 21st January, 1991, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has directed that Rules 65-70 of the Delhi Factories Rules 1950 apply to the factories specified in the schedule to the said notification; that the Air India Ground Service Department Canteen is mentioned at serial No. 9 at the said schedule; that the said canteen has been established for the welfare of more than 2000 workers employed in the premises of the respondent Air India. It further emerges from the statement of claim that it was the claim of the respondent workmen that the respondent HCI is under contract with the respondent Air India to maintain and run the said canteen; that the appointment letter for the period of 40 days were being issued to each of the workman and on expiry of the said 40 days fresh appointment letters again for 40 days were issued to each of the workman and that each of the workman had completed the statutory period of 240 days in a year; that the said workmen employed temporarily had been called for interview several times but had not been selected and on the contrary persons junior to them had been regularized. It was further the plea that the device of "contract" by the respondent Air India to the respondent HCI had been deployed to deny the workmen their legitimate right of regularization and other consequential benefits as an employee of Air India and to circumvent the various provisions of the Contract Labour (Prohibition and Abolition) Act, 1970. The workmen further claimed that they had been performing duties/work of a permanent and perennial nature continuously required by the respondent Air India but were being paid wages less than the regular employees performing the same duties. It was also alleged that issuance of appointment letter for 40 days with artificial break in service was an unfair labour practice. The workmen thus claimed the relief of regularization of their service with back wages in the respondent Air India.