AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER RULE 25 2 V A AND B OF CONTRACT LABOUR RANDA CENTRAL RULES 1971 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL SOUTH ZONE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the Airport Authority of India, challenging the impugned order passed by the Authority under Rule 25(2)(v)(a)&(b) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, dated 27.04.2001, whereby it has been held that the Members of the second Respondent in the category of safaiwala / cleaner / sweeper under the Contractor engaged by the Petitioner are performing not the same, but similar work as performed by the corresponding category of directly employed workers of the Petitioner.

(2.) The Members of the second Respondent Federation, are the employees of the third Respondent who was a contractor with the Petitioner. A claim has been made by the second Respondent on behalf of his Members before the first Respondent, who is the Authority constituted under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, claiming the same payment for the similar work done by the employees of the Petitioner. After considering the entire materials placed before it, the first Respondent came to the conclusion that the materials would indicate that the nature of work done by the Members of the second Respondent Federation is a similar work, as performed by workers directly employed by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the first Respondent, the Petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the finding of the first Respondent itself is to the effect that the nature of work is not the same but similar. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the fact that the Members of the second Respondent are distinct and different from the permanent employees of the Petitioner, the same salary payable to such permanent employees of the Petitioner cannot be extended to others. In other words, the learned Counsel contended that the classification being different, they cannot be treated alike and therefore, in law they are not entitled to be treated alike while making the payment. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel has made reliance upon the following judgments: