CIAL, AIR CARGO LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKERS UNIO Vs. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, REPRESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a trade union of loading and unloading workers. The members of the petitioner trade union are evictees of lands acquired for establishing the Cochin International Airport (the Airport) and they are permitted to carry on the loading and unloading works in the cargo complex attached to the Airport as part of the rehabilitation package introduced for the evictees at the time of establishment of the Airport. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that a dispute arose during 1999 as to the right of the exporters and importers who are making use of the facilities provided at the cargo complex and the said dispute was resolved by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment holding that the loading and unloading works in the cargo complex have to be carried on in accordance with the arrangements made by the Airport, and the exporters/importers cannot deploy their workers for the said purpose. It is also stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that later during 2017, a dispute arose between the petitioner trade union on one side and the establishments engaged in courier business on the other side as to the right of the employees of the establishments engaged in courier business to carry on the loading and unloading works of their articles in the cargo complex, and the said dispute was resolved by this Court in terms of Ext.P6 judgment holding that the workers engaged by the establishments are entitled to handle the loading and unloading works of their articles. The petitioner sought review of Ext.P6 judgment on the ground that the same runs counter to Ext.P2 judgment, and the review petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of Ext.P7 order clarifying that the said judgment will not affect the pre-existing rights of the members of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P2 judgment and Ext.P7 order, they are entitled to carry on the loading and unloading works in the cargo complex to the exclusion of all others. They have, therefore, preferred Ext.P8 representation to the Airport requesting to cancel the passes issued to the employees of courier service establishments to carry on the loading and unloading works of their articles in the cargo complex. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the Airport in considering the request made in Ext.P8 representation. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

(2.) Some of the beneficiaries of Ext.P6 judgment filed I.A.No.3536 of 2018 for impleading them as additional respondents 4 to 27 in the writ petition and the said interlocutory application was allowed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Airport, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for additional respondents 4 to 27.