RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the final hearing of the petition, the parties agreed that the facts stated in the interim order dated 4th August 2003 may be made the factual basis for the present judgment. On behalf of Union of India it is stated that the statement of facts in the interim order is correct except to the extent that the order observes that the decision to abolish was not taken by the majority of the members and in respect of the visits of Shri Shah and Shri Sundaresan to the Delhi Airport. This writ petition challenges the order dated 20th July, 1999 of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the CACLB) and the consequent order dated 18th April, 2002 of the Government of India declining to abolish the contract labour system at domestic and international airports qua the trolley retrievers. This writ petition is by the 115 trolley retrievers and 12 supervisors of the domestic and international airports at Delhi where some of the petitioners have been averred to be working from 1993. According to the petitioners, the trolley retriever system began in 1984 and is still continued. Even though some of the petitioners were working from 1993 they were given a fresh appointment letter in 1996. The chart (Annex P-1) annexed to the writ petition shows that the petitioners have started working from dates varying from 1993-1998. The petitioners have submitted that their prolonged functioning amounts to contract labour and the respondent No.4 is the contractor within the meaning of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners are pleaded to be contract labour. The petitioners have in the alternative and without prejudice to the above plea submitted that the petitioners are the employees of respondent No.1, Union of India and respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) The main thrust of the writ petition is that the nature of duration and the trolley retrieving work are such that the full time trolley retrievers can be made as permanent employees of respondents 1, 2 and 3. Due to disparity in the wage and service condition as compared to the permanent workers, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 13th April, 1994 to the Chief Labour Commissioner. Even though the petitioners work throughout the year continuously yet they do not get overtime for extra shifts and do not also get bonus & gratuity.

(3.) The petitioners have contended that the respondent's plea that the contract is not a labour contract and the contract was for advertising is a camouflage to mask the real nature of the petitioners' employment. The respondent No.1 is Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour; respondent No.2 is the Airport Authority of India through its Chief Executive, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi; respondent No.3 is the International Airport Authority of India, through its Chief Executive, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi; respondent No.4 is M/s T.D.I, International India Pvt. Ltd and the respondent No.5 is the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board(in short the `CACLB') through its Secretary, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi. The conditions of service of the petitioners and the work done by the petitioner is dictated by the officers of respondents 1, 2 and 3 who also do the overall supervision and control. The respondent No.4 is a mere paper intermediary. Accordingly all the conditions set out in Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act are satisfied. The work is perennial and has gone on for three shifts a day for the last 20 years. The supervisors work for 90% time as trolley retrievers and for the rest of the time mark attendance of the workers. The fresh contract entered into by most of the petitioners is under cloud and the subject matter of an enquiry.