INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. INTERNATIONAL A!R CARGO WORKERS' UNION & Anr.

Judgment

~ -· [2009] 8 S.C.R. 1 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. INTERNATIONAL A!R CARGO WORKERS' UNION & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2244 of 2002) APRIL 13, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] A D u Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 - s. 10 - Cargo handling work - Granted to a private company by c the Airport Authority- On cancellation of licence of the private company, employees thereof on ad hoc basis employed as casual workers with the Authority - Employees thereafter forming a Co-operative Society - Society entering into a contract bf contract labour with the Authority - On termination D of the contract, employees seeking their absorption with the Authority - Reference of industrial dispute as to whether the Authority was right in not absorbing the workers - Tribunal holding that the contract labour agreement between the Society and the Authority was a sham, nominal and E camouflage and there was violation of s. 9A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Award set aside by Single Judge - On appeal, the order of Single Judge set aside and the award of Tribunal upheld by Division Bench of High Court - On appeal held: The contract labour agreement was not a sham or camouflage - There was no violation of s. 9A of Industrial Disputes Act - In absence of notification u/s. 10 prohibiting contract labour in operation of cargo handling work, employees not entitled to absorption - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 9A. F G Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Interference with award of Industrial tribunal - Scope of - Held: The award not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that material relied on by the tribunal 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A was insufficient or not credible - However, when tribunal's finding is based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence, interference with the award is warranted - Jurisdiction - Writ jurisdiction. 8 Appellant-Authority established a cargo complex at Madras. Under an agreement, it granted a licence to a private company as its ground handling agent in respect of export, import and trans-shipment of cargo consignments. Appellant had no privity of contract, C obligation or responsibility towards the workers of the private company. When the appellant terminated the cargo handling contract of the private company with the intention of inviting fresh tenders, the workers of the private company D made an appeal to the appellant-Authority to provide them employment. They also filed a writ petition. Appellant-Authority unilaterally came forward with a scheme to mitigate the hardship of the workers and filed a memo stating to accommodate the workers except by E way of regular absorption, till such time regular arrangements made on contract basis through a Co operative Society. In view of the memo, the writ petition was dismissed. Consequently the workers formed a co operative society. Pending finalization of the contract F with the Society, appellant-Authority in terms of the memo started engaging some of the workers as casual labour on day to day basis depending upon actual requirements. Further, workers Union filed writ petition seeking ground handling work to the Society or to absorb the workers on the permanent roll of the appellant-Authority. During pendency of the petition, an agreement was entered into between the Society and the appellant-Authority whereby Society agreed to provide 70 loaders/packers on a consolidated monthly payment. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the agreement. By a G H .. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO WORKERS' UNION & ANR. 3 further agreement, it was agreed that apart from the A regular workers, additional workers would be provided for other miscellaneous porterage jobs. The agreement interalia provided that members of the Society would have no direct relationship with appellant-Authority; and that the Society would comply with the requirements of B Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The agreement was for a period upto 1.9.1987. A further fresh agreement was entered into for a further period of two years. Wh£m the term of the agreement was coming to an end, respondent-Union and the Society filed writ petition c seeking service security to their 89 workers by treating them at par with regular employees of the Authority. The petition was dismissed with liberty to raise an industrial dispute as the workers had already raised an industrial dispute demanding direct employment and conciliation had ended in failure. Initially the Central government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication, but on direction from High Court, the same was referred for adjudication to labour court. 0 In the meantime tender notice was issued by E appellant-Authority inviting tenders for cargo handling work. The tender notice was challenged in a writ petition on the ground that in absence of valid registration u/s. 7 of CLRA Act, the contract labour were to be treated as direct employees of the appellant-Authority. The petition F was dismissed holding that in absence of Notification u/ s. 10 of CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in respect of cargo handling work and in absence of any material to show that the workmen were workers of appellant-Authority, the appropriate remedy was to G agitate the labour authority. The writ appeal against the order was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Appellant-Authority again invited fresh tender and the same was challenged in writ petition which was H 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R. A dismissed on the-ground that issue was pending with the Industrial tribunal and that the writ petitions for similar relief had been rejected earlier. Writ appeal against the order was also dismissed. B c D Industrial tribunal directed the appellant-Authority to absorb the workers. Writ petition was filed challenging the award. Single Judge of High court set aside the award of the tribunal. However, it issued directions viz: (1) Central Government and Advisory Board to consider whether deployment of contract labour with regard to packing loading and unloading in the Cargo Complex in question, should be abolished; (2) If Central Government issued Notification u/s. 10 of CLRA Act, all those who had worked as contract labour under the contract between the Society and the appellant-Authority shall be absorbed. In writ appeal, Division Bench of High Court restored the award of the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.The contract labour agreement between appellant-Authority and the society was not sham, nominal or a camouflage and the contract labour were not the direct employees of appellant-Authority. There was no violation of Section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act. In the absence of a notification u/s. 10 of Contract Labour F Regulation and Abolition Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the operation of cargo handling work, the workmen employed as contract labour are not entitled to claim absorption. [Para 29 (i), (ii) & (iii)] [36-E- G] G

2.1 It is true that in exercising the writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings and award of the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, cannot re- appreciate evidence. The findings of fact recorded by a H ,. / ' r INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO WORKERS' UNION & ANR. 5 fact finding authority should ordinarily be considered as A final. The findings of the Tribunal should not be interfered in writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that the material on which the tribunal had acted was insufficient or not credible. It is also true that as long as the findings of fact are based on some materials which are relevant, findings B may not be interfered with merely because another view is also possible. But where the Tribunal records findings on no evidence or irrelevant evidence, it is certainly open to the High Court to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. [Para 24] [26-E-G] c