MUMBAI MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners sought a reference in respect of persons who were employed with the respondent between the years 1987 to 1993. The demand of the petitioner union itself was made in the year 1998 and thereafter the reference came to be made by the appropriate Government. The reference as made, read as under:

(2.) A claim statement came to be filed on behalf of 959 employees, whose names were listed in the schedule. The contentions of the petitioner union was that these workers were engaged in the categories of loaders, cleaners, sweepers, peons and other employees in different categories of Airport (operation area) and at such other places of work as required at Mumbai Airport. The workers used to be engaged groupwise and location basis though the work was not on permanent basis. These appointments were of 110 days in a year. There is no security of employment and as such the position of these employees is that of suspended animation and as a result they could not go for employment in other places. Though they worked in 1987 and thereafter they are not given preference for regularisation based on their seniority and the management continues to appoint employees on casual and temporary basis and therefore denied the right to work which is unfair and arbitrary and violative of their right to life.

(3.) VARIOUS contentions were raised on behalf of the parties at the time of hearing before the learned Industrial Tribunal. It was contended that the workers under reference cannot be said to be workmen nor the dispute raised could be said to be an industrial dispute as it did not have the support of a substantial number of regular workmen employed in the undertaking, nor did the petitioner union have substantial membership of regular employees working in the respondent undertaking. The direct workmen, it was submitted, of the company are not at all interested because all the workers under reference were engaged for short period, during the period from 1987-93 and that they did not raise any demand. On consideration of the said contention, the learned Tribunal held in favour of the respondent company that the dispute as raised would not constitute an industrial dispute. The learned Tribunal thereafter proceeded on the merits of the issue considering the terms of the reference. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence, which was recorded, the learned Tribunal held that it was not possible to grant relief and consequently the demand to regularise the workers under reference was unsustainable. The contention on behalf of the petitioners-union that substantial work was available, was negated. The learned tribunal recorded a finding that on the evidence on record, it was apparent that the work is not perennial. The learned tribunal also held, considering the law laid down by the Apex court that the workmen in respect of whom the regularisation was sought had not worked for a substantially long period. The tribunal also held that pursuant to various awards and orders of High Court and Supreme Court the respondent company had to engage and/or regularise some labourers. The Ministry of Civil Aviation by memorandum dated 23/6/1997 had also imposed a total ban on recruitment. The respondent company had to follow that. Apart from that the respondent company had to follow the reservation policy in the matter of recruitment. The learned tribunal also recorded a finding that it found substance in the contention of the management that the company is already overstaffed and suffering financial loss. In such circumstances regularisation of workers under reference would lead to drastic and disastrous consequences. The learned tribunal considered the factual aspect that the demand of workers is not reasonable. The reference made to an earlier award wherein relief of absorbtion was granted was considered and differentiated. Accordingly the reference was negated.