AIRPORT EMPLOYEES UNION REGD Vs. ANIL BAIJAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Airport Employees Union has filed this petition for initiating proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. Respondent,no.2 is the Contractor/employer whereas respondent no.1 Indian Airlines was using the services of the contract labourers.employed by respondent no.2 in its works. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.3330/99 against the respondent for a direction to the respondent to regularise the, services of all the workmen of respondent no.1 Indian Airlines who had been working as loaders and whose names were shown in Annexure-P1 of the writ petition with effect from the date of their initial appointment with consequential benefits. An application was also filed for direction to the respondent to maintain status quo and to continue the workmen in service during the pendency of, the writ petition. On 15/7/1999 a during the pendency of the writ petition. On 15/7/1999 a Single Bench of this court issued notice on interim direction Single Bench of this court issued notice on interim direction application and directed the parties to maintain status quo as of the date of the order. This stay order was extended subsequently.

(2.) Now the complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents were given direction to maintain status quo as regards the working of the persons whose names figured in Annexure-P1 of the writ petition but respondent no.2 Contractor had violated this order by refusing to give work to some of those workers whose names are given in Annexure-P. A registered notice dated 12/10/1999 was sent to both the respondents inviting their attention to the order of the court dated 15/7/1999 and asking them to implement the order in its true spirit but to no effect. It was alleged specifically that one Vinod Malik and Subhash have not been given work w.e.f. 15/9/1999 and 1/6/1999. respectively. On the other hand respondent no.2 had engaged some new workers and gave them work while the workers whose name were given in Annexure-P1 had been refused work and they were not allowed to work for more than 15 days in a month. The names of some new labourers engaged by respondent no.2 have, also been mentioned. It was stated that since new workers have been engaged, the respondent cannot take the plea that they did not have work to provide to the workers whose names were given in Annexure-P1. Furthermore in the writ petition the court had directed the petitioners to surrender their PICs while going off duty and had directed the contractor to give them back to the workers when they resume duty next day. The workers were complying with this order but in the case of ManJeet, Dharmender and Ranbir, the Contractor had not returned PICs to them w.e.f. 4/2/2000 and thereby refused duties to them. The respondents have, thus, deliberately violated the order of this court. It was prayed that they should be directed to provide work to Sunil Kumar, Srinivas, Subhash and Vinod Malik and the PICs of ManJeet, Dharmender and Ranbir should be directed to be returned to them. It was further prayed that the respondent should be punished for committing contempt of this Court.

(3.) Respondent no.2, the Contractor which was engaging the labourers for working in the works of respondent no.1 submitted its reply in which, inter alia, it was stated that Vinod Malik was caught red handed stealing some baggage of a passenger by the security division of the respondent Indian Airlines and because of that he was not iworking since 1/6/1999 and on the date of the passing of the order of status quo he was not entitled to be provided work and there is no disobedience of the order of the court. On the complaint of the Indian Airlines that adequate number of contract labourers were not attending work, due notices were. sent. to some of the workers but they did not report back, as a result respondent no.2 had to engage a few new hands for being provided to respondent no.1 to meet its requirement. It was stated that this has not resulted in the curtailment of the working days of the petitioners. The respondent alleged that the full particulars of the new labourers allegedly engaged by respondent no.2 have not been mentioned in the petition, therefore, they could not be verified. As regards Manjeet, Dharmender and Ranbir their personal identification cards (PICs) were seized by Bureau of Civil Aviation and the security of the Airport Author ity of India on 3/2/2000 when they were found roaming at the airport although they were not on duty. As a consequence these persons could not be assigned duty as they were found guilty of the breach of rules and regulations and the security in the view of the Airport Authority of India and Bureau of Civil Aviation security. There is no disobedience of the order of the court by the respondent'.