BALWANT RAI SALUJA Vs. AIR INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the commonality of the controversy involved in this batch of appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts from LPA No.390/2010 arising out of WP(C) No.14178/2004 are adumbrated herein.

(2.) The appellants-workmen claimed to be the deemed employees of the management of Air India Limited and on this basis, disputes were raised and on eventual failure, the Central Government referred the disputes to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short =the tribunal') for adjudication. It is worth noting that there were three identical references barring the change of names of the workmen. The terms of reference read as follows:

(3.) It was the case of the workmen before the tribunal that they were engaged on casual basis by the respondent-management in the Air India Ground Service Department Canteen, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi through Chefair, flight caterers, which was a unit of the Hotel Corporation of India (HCI), a Government Corporation, the respondent No.2 herein. It was urged that the canteen was established and maintained by the Air India under the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for brevity =the 1948 Act') and by notification dated 21.1.1991, the Lt. Governor of Delhi had directed that Rules 65-70 of the Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 shall apply to the factories specified in the schedule to the said notification and as the Air India Ground Service Department Canteen finds mention at serial No.9., its workers were deemed to be the employees of Air India. It was asserted before the tribunal that HCI had entered into a contract with the respondent Air India to maintain and run the said canteen which was a maladroit device to circumvent various provisions of the Contract Labour (Prohibition and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short =the 1970 Act') and that the workmen were performing duties which were permanent, perennial in nature and continuously required by the Air India but were paid wages less than the wages paid to regular employees performing the same duties. On the aforesaid foundation, the workmen claimed regularization of service with back wages. As the employees were disengaged during the pendency of the dispute, the same was also assailed under Section 33-A of the Act.