KHUSHI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.

(2.) This writ petition challenges the Order dated 11th June, 2001(Annexure P-11 at Page 33A of the writ petition) declining to refer the industrial dispute raised in respect of the petitioner for adjudication. The petitioner claims that he had worked for about two years from 26th September, 1998 as a Helper at ARSR/TX Stand High Security Radar Facility of the respondent No. 2(Airports Authority of India) at Bijwasan. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi, who has the authority to make the reference of the industrial dispute raised by the aggrieved workman under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') and who has also passed the order dated 11 th June, 2001 impugned in this writ petition. The respondent No. 2 is the Airports Authority of India (in short the 'AAI'), i.e., the employer of the petitioner though no relief is claimed against it.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are: That on 26th September, 1998, the petitioner had been employed as a Helper at the ARSR/TX Stand High Security Radar Facility of the AAI at Bijwasan. The supervision of the said work was contracted out by the AAI to one contractor, namely, M/s. Vishal Enterprises. It has been averred that the similarly situated workmen were being paid Rs. 90.80 per day whereas the consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/- per month was given to the petitioner. On 15th June, 2000, the petitioner served a legal notice (Annexure P-1 at Pages 13- 14 of the petition) on the AAI, making a demand for regularization and parity of pay with similarly situated workmen on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' after completion of 240 days of service. It is the petitioner's case that pursuant to the said legal notice, his services were terminated on 8th July, 2000 in retaliation by the AAI without assigning any reason, holding any inquiry or giving him a preferential right of re-engagement. Thereafter the petitioner served another legal demand notice dated 24th July, 2000 against his illegal termination, pointing out that this act of the AAI was discriminatory and amounted to victimization. However, the respondent No. 2 chose not to gave any reply to said legal notice. Thereafter on 9th August, 2000 the petitioner filed a statement of claim (Annexure P-4 at Pages 19-22 of the petition) along with documents before the Conciliation Officer. On 18th August, 2000, the AAI filed a reply before the Conciliation Officer stating that the petitioner was not its employee. On 13th October, 2000, the petitioner filed a rejoinder, reiterating his claim. On 6th February, 2001, the Conciliation Officer filed a failure of the conciliation report. On 11th June, 2001, the respondent No. 1 through its Under Secretary passed the impugned order declining to refer the dispute for adjudication which reads: