R SRINIVASAN Vs. MANAGEMENT OF INDIA AIRLINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents herein not to exclude the petitioner in the scheme for engagement of temporary labour by the respondent in Madras / Chennai, that was approved by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.808 of 2000 and related cases on 11.12.2002.

(2.) THE petitioner herein joined duty under the respondent management as a temporary labour-loader in the year 1989 and worked as such till 1995 and thereafter, he was given one year break. He was again engaged as 'Sufaiwala' between the period July 1992 and June 1993. THE petitioner was allotted the work in baggage handling section in the Cargo Division by the respondent in Indian Airlines. He was again given re-employment for a short period in the year 1995. THE respondents used to employ workers on temporary basis, on fixed duration spells of 90 days and in view of the fact that many others like the petitioners were engaged in such a successive spells, without being made permanent, writ petitions were filed for permanency and the scheme presented by the Indian Airlines in the said batch of cases was accepted by all the workers. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.808 of 2000, by its order, dated 11.12.2002 approved the same with the modification, that for the purpose of consideration and for being included in the scheme, the worker should have put in a minimum of 90 days service in any year from 1991. THE Division Bench has also observed that it was not practical or rational to include even those workers who have put in just a few days of work in all these ten years, for the purpose of consideration. Except this modification, the Division Bench sustained the Judgment of the learned single Judge approving the scheme by the Indian Airlines.

(3.) MR.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the denial of the work to the petitioner was a violation of Principles of natural justice and contrary to the scheme approved by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the only source of the petitioner for his livelihood is his employment in Indian Airlines, and due to the extreme hardship caused to him, he was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.34191 of 2005, seeking for his re-employment under the respondent herein, in terms of the scheme incorporated as per orders passed in the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.808 of 2000 dated 11.12.2002.