AIRWAYS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge, in these Intra-Court appeals is made to the judgment dated 25th January, 2012 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.80/2005 preferred by the respondent no.1 Thai Airways International Ltd. (Airlines) and dismissing W.P.(C) No. 2610/1991 preferred by the appellant.

(2.) THE writ petition filed by the Airlines impugned the award dated 13 th February, 2004 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the termination of the employment of the appellants no.2 to 16 as illegal and in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 as well as the settlement dated 21st June, 1990 arrived at between the appellant association and the Airlines and axiomatically directing reinstatement of the appellants no.2 to 16 with full back wages and continuity of service. The writ petition filed by the appellant Association and the workmen sought mandamus for initiating action under Section 29 of the Act for failure of the Airlines to comply with,

(3.) WE are unable to find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In terms of the settlement, the appellant workmen who were casual/temporary employees had no right against the Airlines and the Airlines was given time of six months for taking a decision qua such workmen. Such a decision having been taken by the Airlines, we fail to understand the grievance of the appellant workmen. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant workmen by settlement knew that the decision of the Airlines could also be of their termination and had, by entering into the settlement, acceded to the same. From the conduct of the appellant workmen of not accepting the offer of employment with M/s CAPL to whom the work which the appellant workmen were performing had been outsourced by the Airlines it is obvious that the appellant workmen are gainfully employed. We, for this reason also are satisfied that no interference is required in appellate jurisdiction. There is no merit in the appeals, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.