ASSERVADHAM Vs. GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the appeal relates to question of regularization of casual workers. The learned single Judge upheld the Scheme of the respondent for regularization. Not being satisfied, the workers have filed the above writ appeals.

(2.) The appellants are working with the respondent Indian Airlines Limited as Class IV Unskilled Casual Workers like, helpers, loaders, peons, etc. They are being engaged casually for a maximum period of ninety days at a stretch in a year. According to the appellants, some of them have been working from 1977 onwards and though there were regular recruitment, the appellants' claims were ignored. By a Notification dated 04.06.1997, the Indian Airlines Limited called for applications from those who worked as casual/part-time/contract basis for a maximum period of ninety days during a period of twelve consecutive months in the last three years for the Post of Helpers. As many of the appellants are not qualified either with regard to the age or educational qualifications etc., they claim that under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, they are entitled for re-employment and on that basis, they have filed writ petitions seeking to quash the notification calling for the applications for regular appointments and to direct the respondent to regularize their services. Pending the writ petitions, this Court, by order dated 23.12.1997, directed the respondent to frame a scheme and in pursuant to this order, the Indian Airlines Limited framed a Scheme dated 08.09.1999. In the final hearing, the learned Judge upheld the Scheme and directed the appellants to work out their remedy under that Scheme. Not being satisfied, the above Writ Appeals have been preferred.

(3.) M/s. M.Sundar, P.V.S.Giridhar, K.P.Krishna Shetty, K. Palanisamy, V.Prakash, K.M.Ramesh, K.Venkataramani, M.V.Muralidharan and Fredric Castra appearing for the appellants made elaborate submissions on the rights of their services to be regularized and as to how the Scheme is at variance with the direction of the learned Judge and unworkable. Their submissions are summarized as follows :