High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.02.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012andMP.Nos.1 of 2012 & 2 of 2012(3 Nos.)1.The Commissioner of Customs (Airport),Customs House,33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.2.The Deputy Commissioner Customs (Airport),Chennai Airport,Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027. ...Petitioners in all W.P's.Vs.1.The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,Rep. by its Registrar,Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006. ...1st Respondent in all W.P's.2.R.Paneerselvam ...2nd Respondent in W.P.No.21524 of 20123.S.Jaganathan ...2nd Respondent in W.P.No.21525 of 20124.P.Rajagopal ...2nd Respondent in W.P.No.21526 of 20125.S.P.Arunraj ...2nd Respondent in W.P.No.21527 of 2012 Common Pryaer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in I.D.Nos.397, 398, 402 & 415 of 2004 respectively dated 24.04.2012 and quash the same.Page No.1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012In all W.P's.:For Petitioners: Mr.Umesh Rao.K, SSCFor Respondents: Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Apunu, for R2: R1 – TribunalCOMMON ORDERSince the issue involved in all these Writ petitions are similar in nature, they are disposed of by way of this common order.2. These Writ petitions have been filed seeking quashment of the common award dated 24.04.2012 passed by the 1st respondent in the Industrial disputes raised by the respective 2nd respondents in I.D.Nos.397, 398, 402 and 406 of 2004 respectively. 3. For brevity, the petitioners in all these Writ petitions are hereinafter referred to as the 'management' and the respective 2nd respondents in all these Writ petitions are hereinafter referred to as the 'workmen'.4. The case of the management is that the workmen herein raised Industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.397, 398, 402 and 406 of 2004 before the 1st Page No.2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012respondent alleging that they were engaged by the Management-Customs for carrying out certain errands during the period between 1992 to 1999. While so, on 05.02.1999, pursuant to the raid conducted by CBI, as foreign currencies and goods worth about Rs.50 Lakhs were seized, the respective workmen were detained alleging that it is the workmen who were in possession of foreign currency and, hence, on that ground the workmen were denied job, against which the workmen raised industrial dispute and the 1st respondent, vide its common award dated 24.04.2012 ordered for compensation in favour of the respective workmen. Aggrieved by the same, the management has come up with these writ petitions.5. Learned counsel for the management submitted that, the management has come up with the present petitions mainly on two grounds, viz., (i) that the management-customs is not an Industry and it is doing a sovereign duty and thereby, is excluded from the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and the disputes raised by the workmen herein under Section 2(A)(2) of the ID Act as against the management is not maintainable. However, without considering the said fact, the 1st respondent had entertained the disputes and awarded compensation, which is wholly unsustainable. Further, there is no employer-employee relationship between the management and the workmen and the Page No.3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012workmen herein have miserably failed to prove that they were in continuous employment of the management for 240 days in a calendar year and 480 days in two calendar years and unless the same is established by the workmen, they cannot make any claim as against the management. However, without considering the same, the 1st respondent/Labour Court, solely based on the entry passes issued by some other agency for the ingress and egress of the workmen herein, held that the workmen herein were in continuous employment of the management and ordered for compensation, which is per se illegal.6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen submitted that the workmen herein were casual employees and without any appointment orders they were continuously engaged by the officials of the petitioners management from the years 1992 - 1999 and the workmen had to obey the orders of their higher authorities and for no fault of theirs, they were made scape goats and for the misconduct on the part of the officials of the petitioners Management, the workmen were made liable and were falsely implicated and the Labour Court, after careful consideration of the said fact, ordered for payment of compensation in favour of the respective workmen, which is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of these Writ petitions. Page No.4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 20127. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents placed on record.8.Even at the very outset, this Court, insofar as the maintainability of dispute with regard to the management-customs, could hold that the disputes raised by the workmen are not maintainable. It is to be pointed out that the management-customs is performing a sovereign duty, safeguarding the interests of the nation and the persons employed by the management-customs are Government employees, and they cannot characterize themselves as workmen and seek the benevolence of the Court by raising a dispute under the Act. However, without adverting to the basic character of the job performed by the workmen, the Court below had erroneously held the disputes maintainable against the management-customs, which cannot be allowed to sustain. Therefore, the dispute raised by the workmen against the management-customs is not maintainable under the Act.9. Insofar as the payment of compensation is concerned, the court below held that the workmen herein were in continuous employment and that they were provided passes for entering into the Airport to discharge their official Page No.5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012duties and therefore, they would be deemed to be workmen under the petitioners Management. However, there is no finding by the court below that the said passes were issued by the management-customs to the workmen for entering into the airport. The airport is not under the control of the management -customs and for discharging some works, be it for the management-customs or other entities, if passes are given to some persons to enter into the airport area, the same cannot be held that the said persons are employees of the said entities. The employment of an individual with a particular employer has to be tested on the anvil of the documents which establish employer-employee relationship and without the same being established, mere issuance of passes to the workmen herein for discharging some work will not cloth employer-employee relationship between the management-customs and the workmen. When the workmen have not produced any other material to establish employer-employee relationship, the passes issued to the workmen alone cannot constitute the said relationship for this Court to hold that the workmen were in continuous employment of the management-customs. 10. Further, if the workmen herein want to claim the status of permanent workmen by adverting to the passes issued to them to establish their relationship with the management-customs, the workmen have to approached Page No.6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012the appropriate forum and they cannot raise a dispute to claim permanency with the management-customs. However, without properly appreciating the said facts, the court below had ordered compensation to the workmen, without answering the issue of permanency, which is grossly perverse and the same cannot be sustained.11. For the reasons aforesaid these Writ petitions stand allowed. However, the workmen herein are at liberty to workout their remedy in the manner known to law. The period during which these writ petitions were pending before this Court shall stand excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, if any, if the workmen herein approach any other authority for claiming relief. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.27.02.2025sktIndex : Yes / No Speaking order: Yes / NoNCC : Yes / NoPage No.7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012To1.The Commissioner of Customs (Airport),Customs House,33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.2.The Deputy Commissioner Customs (Airport),Chennai Airport,Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027. 3.The Registrar,Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.Page No.8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012M.DHANDAPANI, J.sktW.P.Nos.21524 to 21527 of 2012andMP.Nos.1 of 2012 & 2 of 2012(3 Nos.)27.02.2025Page No.9 of 9