K.PRASAD Vs. THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award Ext.P14 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam, in I.D No.151/2006 in which the demands raised by the petitioner were found unjustifiable. The reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act was on the issues: (1) whether the demand of the petitioner, who was working as a contract Labour under the 1st respondent - Airport Authority of India, Trivandrum as Electrician/Wireman through the contractors - respondents 3 and 4 (M/s R.K. Electricals and M/S New Electricals), for regularisation w.e.f 1.3.1994, was justified; and (2) whether the contract entered into between the Airport Authority and the contractors, ie. between the 1st respondent and respondents 3 and 4, was a genuine or sham contract.

(2.) In the claim statement/additional claim statement Exts.P7 and P7(a), the petitioner claimed that he, along with 22 other workmen had been engaged by the respondents as contract labour under the International Airport Authority of India, Trivandrum ('IAAI' for short) from 1.5.1991 onwards, in the electrical wing for installation, repair and maintenance work, for a period of 33 months, till 28.02.1994. It was claimed that, they were under the control and supervision of the Director of Airport, Trivandrum, till they were denied employment. The petitioner had earlier filed O.P No.4507 of 1997 before this Court challenging the denial of employment. The contract labours unions had also filed various Original Petitions challenging the denial of employment to contract labourers and challenging the notification issued by the central Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CLRA Act, 1970') prohibiting contract labour to the extent it did not include work in electrical wing of IAAI. During the pendency of that O.P, the Central Government issued notification dated 16.11.1999 prohibiting contract labour in electrical work in the premises of the International Airport authority. Thereupon, the petitioner and others claimed absorption alleging that, the electrical works were inevitable for the functioning of the Airport and engagement of contract labours after prohibition was notified, was not legal. O.P. 4507 of 1997 was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated 30.10.2002 observing that, the issue was covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and others v. National Union Water Front Workers & others [(2001) 7 SCC 1]. The petitioner was given the liberty to work out his remedies on the basis of the said judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner took up the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner submitting Ext.P5 petition dated 31.1.2002, requesting to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. On the basis of that request, the Government of India referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam as per Ext.P6 and the same was numbered as I.D No.17 of 2003. The dispute in respect of one Mr.P.Balakrishnan Nair also was referred along with that of the petitioner. On formation of the Central Industrial Tribunal, the I.D was transferred to it and renumbered as I.D No.151/2006. The management -the 1st respondent, filed their written statement - Ext.P8. The contractors M/s.R.K.Electricals and New Electricals also filed their written statements. 2 witnesses were examined on behalf of the workman as WW 1 and WW2. Documents Exts.W1 to W54 were marked. The management examined MW1 and marked documents Exts.M1 to M20.

(3.) The petitioner points out that, even though he filed a petition seeking a direction to the management to produce various records in their custody, the Tribunal did not pass any positive orders. It is stated that, the Assistant Manager, Legal had filed an affidavit stating that the records were not available. According to the petitioner, though he produced the copies of the documents, which he obtained on application under the Right to Information Act, those were not allowed to be marked based on objections raised by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has got a further case that, similar documents were marked in other cases like I.D No.51, 127 and 149 of 2006 and photocopies of several documents were marked therein and it was only in his case that the Tribunal disallowed his request. The petitioner points out that, MW1 who was examined on behalf of the management was not at all conversant with the facts of the case. However, the Tribunal, rejected his claims. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised serious allegations that, the Tribunal tried to go behind Ext.P6 order of reference on the ground that the petitioner had not raised any contention as to 'sham contract' in the Original Petition, which he had filed before this Court, despite the fact that the issue referred for adjudication was whether the contract was genuine or sham. According to him, the Tribunal did not go into the issue on the basis of the evidence adduced.