Airports Authority of India vs Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya for learned Advocate Mr. SV Raju for the petitioner and Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned Advocate for the respondent Panchayat.

In this petition, petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (CGITA) NO. 505 of 2004 and Old Reference (ITC) NO. 56 of 2002 dated 28th June, 2006 wherein the CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad has while allowing application Exh. 10, directed the first party petitioner to pay 70 per cent of the wages to the concerned workmen on 7th day of each month from the date of termination till the further order of the Tribunal and to produce receipt of such payment to the Tribunal on every month.

During the pendency of the reference, application Exh. 10 was filed by the respondent with a prayer to direct the petitioner to pay as per prayer made in paragraph 7 of the interim relief application. Said application was opposed by the petitioner. Ultimately, labour court allowed said application with aforesaid directions and said order is under challenge in this petition before this Court. Said interim order was passed by the CGIT cum Labour Court Ahmedabad after hearing the present petitioner on 28th June 2006. However, present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 25th February, 2008. No doubt, there is explanation for condonation of delay made by the petitioner in this petition on separate affidavit. However, learned Advocate Mrs. Pahwa for the respondent panchayat has objected delay in filing of the present petition against interim order.

Apart from that, learned Advocate Mr. Pandya for the petitioner has placed on record paper book and copy thereof was supplied to the learned Advocate Mrs. Pahwa for the respondent. From the bare perusal of the interim order, one fact is very much clear that these nine concerned workmen, at the time when the reference was made, as per the workmen, they were working with the petitioner and they were wrongly shown in the books of the Contractor. However, this is the dispute which is to be adjudicated by the Labour Court because the terms of reference itself suggests whether these nine concerned workmen are the workmen of the petitioner or the workmen of the contractor. On 10th March, 2003, specific status quo order was passed by the labour court which was served on the petitioner and, thereafter, on 12th March, 2003, services of said nine workmen were terminated, therefore, question was considered by the labour court that before terminating services, whether the prior permission is necessary or not and whether approval is necessary or not. Thereafter, considering the apex court decision in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, the labour court has granted interim relief in their favour to the extent that the petitioner shall have to pay 70 per cent wages from the date of termination till the reference is decided by the Tribunal.

During the course of hearing, suggestion was made by this Court to the petitioner that, let these nine concerned workmen may be provided work in service by the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties so that, at least, during the pendency of reference, these workmen concerned may be able to get work and earn wages for the work done by them. This Court has also made it clear that if the earlier contract is terminated and in place of earlier contractor, another contractor is there, whoever may be the another new contractor, these workmen may be taken on work by the new contractor or they may be provided work by the petitioner itself as and when it is available and to take any other miscellaneous work from them which may be performed by them but the workmen will be paid during such period whether the work is available or not and this will not come in the way of the workmen in pending reference and the same will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents in pending reference.

Learned Advocate Mr. Pandya for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is prepared to provide work to the concerned workmen. As per his submission, these workmen may be placed either with the contractor or they may be provided the work by the petitioner itself as observed by this Court earlier in this order during the pendency of the reference. However, he also submitted that some suitable directions may be issued to the Tribunal for deciding the reference within some reasonable period. He also made it clear that such arrangement will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the pending reference and the workmen will not be entitled to claim any equity on the basis of such arrangement.

Learned Advocate Mrs. Pahwa for the respondent submitted that the order dated 28th June, 2006 has been challenged by the petitioner after a period of about one year and six months and, therefore, workmen concerned are entitled for 70% wages from the petitioner at least from the date of interim order dated 28th June, 2006.

I have considered the submissions made by both the learned Advocates. At this stage, controversy between the parties cannot be examined by this Court because it may have adverse effect on either of the parties to the reference pending before the CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad. Therefore, it is better if the pending reference itself is decided by the CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad within some reasonable period and meanwhile, petitioner should provide work to the workmen concerned within fifteen days and during this period, from the date of interim order till the date of actual reinstatement, some wages must have to be paid by the petitioner to the workmen concerned. After considering the entire matter as a whole, while keeping balanced view, without creating equity in favour of the either of the parties, it is directed to the petitioner to provide work to the workmen concerned whose services were terminated on 12th March, 2003 and the petitioner is entitled to utilise their services either as a persons of the contractor or of the petitioner and to provide work to the workmen concerned and the petitioner is also directed to pay minimum wages of the category in which concerned workmen were working prior to termination of their service which applicable to the Air Port Authority for skilled/unskilled category looking to the nature of work performed by the workmen, till the reference is finally adjudicated by the labour court. Petitioner is also directed to pay 50 per cent means, instead of 70 per cent, 50 per cent wages to the concerned workmen from the date of 28.6.2006 till the date on which they are provided work by the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Industrial Tribunal (State) - cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad is also directed to decide the pending reference as referred to above within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and leading oral and documentary evidence to the parties and both the parties have assured before this Court that unnecessary adjournments will not be asked by either side. This order has been passed by this Court while considering the fact that the unemployed workmen may get work and may earn wages for the work done by them and also for interim period, they may be able to get some part of the wages which may minimize and mitigate hardships suffered by the concerned workmen. This order has been passed by this Court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and it is open for the concerned workmen to report for work before the Senior Manager (Engineering Electrical Maintenance) for duty after receiving copy of this order. As and when concerned workmen report before the Senior Manager (Engineering Electrical Maintenance) for duty, the Senior Manager (Engineering Electrical Maintenance) for duty will allow them to report for work and will provide them work accordingly as observed hereinabove.

With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the matter.