THE CALICUT AIRPORT WORKERS ASSOCIATION Vs. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is against Ext.P4 award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ('Tribunal' for short) Ernakulam. The Calicut Airport Workers Association (INTUC) raised a demand for appointing 16 workers who were working under various contractors under the first respondent. The Central Government referred the issue for adjudication to the Tribunal as follows:

(2.) Subsequent to the filing of the claim statement by the workman, even though the management had appeared initially, they remained absent in the subsequent postings and did not file any written statement. Therefore the Tribunal decided the issue on the basis of the claim statement as well as proof affidavit. However the Tribunal concluded that even though the petitioners were working in the Calicut Airport since 1988 to 1995 under different contractors, since there was no notification under section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting contract labour, the question of their regularisation or the question of granting them work does not arise. The Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioners that they continued to work from 1988 to 1995 under different contractors under the supervision of the first respondent remained unchallenged. The Industrial Tribunal, after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. V. National Union, Water Front Workers (2001 (2) LLJ 1087), observed that section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act does not provide for automatic absorption of contract labour, as soon as a notification was issued prohibiting employment of contract labour in an establishment. It is only if the contract was found to be a camouflage in order to deny the benefit to the workers, that the question of regularisation comes. In case the contract was found to be genuine and there is a notification prohibiting contract labour, the question of preference of the contract labourers will arise before engaging other workmen regularly. The Labour Court further found that the notification prohibiting the contract labours was issued only on 16.11.1999 and therefore the petitioners who were disengaged on 29.8.1995 cannot claim any preference in the matter of engagement as long as the contract labour was not abolished.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that when the issue referred for adjudication was with respect to the demand for appointment of the workmen engaged through contract labourers and the contention of the workmen was that contract was entered into for denying them appointment, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have considered the question whether the arrangement with the contractors was genuine or not, irrespective of the prohibition or not of the contract labour.