THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Chairman & Managing Director

4. Air India Employees GuildRep by its Regional SecretaryAir India Unit ComplexPallavaram, Chennai-600 043.5. Air India Air Transport Services LimitedAUC Building, Pallavaram,Chennai- 600 043... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A. 403/01W.A.404/011.T. Suresh2.H. Sureshkumar3.C.P. Srinivasalu4.Y.C. Dhanapal5.P.V. Ravanaiah6.M. Palanivel7.K. Narasimman8.S. John Victor9.M.Vigneswaran10.N.V. Prasad Rao11.K. Dhanasekaran12.Parasu Padmaiah13.P. Umapathy14.G. Kumaraguru15.V. Ramesh16.V. Sivabalan17.A. Jayakumar18.D. Jagadeesan19.K.V. Jayachandran20.M. Munusamy21.M. Balaji... Appellants / PetitionersVs1. The Management of Air India Ltdrepresented by ts Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building, V floorNo.15 Baracamba RoadNew Delhi. 2. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls RoadEgmore, Madras- 600 008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkam, Madras- 600 0274. Air India Employees Guildrep by its Regional SecretaryAir India units complex,Pallavaram,Chennai-43R4 impleaded vide order dated 25.2.2002 made inW.A.M.P.No.22001/2001... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A.404/01W.A.405/011.J. Mahendran2.K. Krishna Rao3.R. Raghu4.S. Raman5.S. Palani6.D. Jayakumar7.V.C. Murugesan8.T.P. Sasi9.M. Solomon10.N. Radhakrishnan11.B. Muralikrishnan12.B. Harikrishnan13.K.A. Stalin14.T.V. Sathyanarayanamurthy15.E. John Vivekam16.N. Ganesh17.T.P. Surendran18.J. Babu19.K. Nesamani20.V. Krishnan21.V. Albert Jesudoss22.N.T. Nithyanandam23.R. James Anthony Charles24.T. Perumal... Appellants/ Petitioners 405/01Vs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. The Management of Air India Ltd.,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building V FloorNo.15 Baracamba Road,New Delhi- 110 001.2. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls Road,Egmore, Madras- 600 008.3. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkam, Madras- 600 027.4. Air India Employees Guildrep by its Regional SecretaryAir India units ComplexPallavaram, Chennai-43.5. Air India Air Transport services Ltd,Anna International AirportChennai AirportChennai- 600 027.R4 impleaded as per order dated 25.2.2002 made in WAMP.No.22022/01R5 impleaded as per order dated 17.7.06 made in WAMP.Nos.2967 to2974/04... Respondents Respondents 405/01W.A.406/011. M. Muthu2. E. Raghunathan... Appellants/ Petitioners in W.A.406/01VS1. The management of Air India Ltd.,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building V Floor,No.15Baracamba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls RoadEgmore, Madras-8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd.,Anna Internatioanl AirportMeenambakkam, Madras- 600 027.4. District Employment officerEmployment ExchangeKancheepuram.... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A.406/01G. Tamilarasan... Appellant / Petitioner in W.A.407/01A. Kamalakannan... Appellant / Petitioner in W.A.408/01VS1. The management of Air India Ltd.,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building, V FloorNo.15 Baracamba Road, New Delhi- 110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls Road,Egmore, Madras- 600 008.3. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd.,Anna International AirportMeenambakkam, Madras- 600 027.4. District Employment officerEmployment ExchangeKancheepuram.Respondents/ Appellant in 407/01 and 408/011.S. Sounderrajan2.D. Ravi3.L. Venkatachalam4.M.J. Vinod5.C. Ravindran6.D. Prakash7.G. Mahendran8.G. Jayaseelan9.K. Kumaran10.K. Dinakaran11.N. Raghu12.D. Sagayam13.K. Ranjanamohan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.A. Aalex15.K. Ariaveeran16.V. Vijayakumar17.S. Kamalraj Kamesh18.C. Moses19.V. Sundar20.L. Murugan21.R. Aruldas22.V. Pushparaj23.D. Vijayakumar24.R. Benjamin25.J. Pandiyan26.V. Loganathan27.C. Venkatesan28.R. Deivamuthu29.L. Nagappan30.M.C. Suresh31.R. Pious Stanislaous32.B. Arun33.A. Sukumar... Appellants/ Petitioners in W.A.409/07Vs1. The management of Air India Ltd,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building V FloorNo.15 Barahkhamba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls RoadEgmore, Madras- 600 008.3. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkam, Madras- 600 027... Respondents/ Respondents 409/01W.A.410/011.K. Sekar2.C. James Paul3.R. Lakshmikanthan4.D. Felix5.K. Deivamani6.E. Ravichandrasekhar7.D. Rajasekaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.B. Arunachalam9.M. Nagalingam10.N. Janakiraman11.S. Venkatesan12.R. Ravanan...Appellants/ RespondentsVs1. The Management of Air India LimitedMarshalls Road,Egmore, Chennai-82. Air India Employees Guild, rep.by its Regional Secretary, Air India Units Complex, Pallavaram, Chennai-43.(2nd respondent impleaded as perorder dated 25.2.2002made in WAMP.No.22003/2001) ... Respondents inW.A.410/01W.A.411/01K. Baskaran... Appellant/ Petitioner in W.A.411/01VsThe Air Management of Air India Ltd,Marshalls Road,Egmore, Chennai-8.... Respondent in W.A.411/01W.A.412/011.S.L. Jayaprakash2.M. Murugesan3.K. Isaiah4.B.R. Prabhukumar5.R. Venkatesan6.P. Ravichandran7.M. Kannan8.S. Baskaran9.D. Venkataiah10.S. Gopalakrishnan11.N. Narasimhalu12.P.R. Sampathkumar... Appellant/ Petitioner in W.A.412/01VS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. The Management of Air India Ltd,Rep by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building ,V Floor,No.15 Baracamba Road,New Delhi- 110 001.2. The Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls Road,Egmore, Chennai-8.3. TheDeputy Manager (Airport)Air India LimitedAnna International airportMeenambakkamChennai-27.4. Air India Employees Guildrep by is Regional SecretaryAir India Unit ComplexPallavaram, Chenna-43.5. Air India Air Transport Services LimitedAir India Unit Complex, Pallavaram, Chennai-43.... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A. 412/01W.a.No.413/20011. D. Muralidharan2. K. Panneerselvam3. A. Yuvakumar4. A. Mohamed Rafi... Appellants/ Petitioner in W.A.413/01VS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,Rep by its Chairman & Manging DirectorHabsalaya Building, V FloorNo.15, Baracamba RoadNew Delhi- 110 001.2. The Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Chennai-8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India LimitedAnna International AirportMeenambakkam, Chennai-27.4. Air India Employees GuildRep by its regional SecretaryAir India Unit ComplexPallavaram, Chennai-43.5. air India, Air Transport Services Ltd.,Air India Unit Complex,Pallavaram, Chennai-43..... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A. 413/01W.A.414/011. M. Raveendran2. P. Penchaliah3. N. Ramanaiah...Appellants/ PetitionersVs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building V FloorNo.15 Baracamba Road,New Delhi-110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls Road,Egmore, Madras- 83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkam, Madras- 274. Air India Employees Guildrep by its Regional SecretaryAir India units ComplexPallavaram, Chennai-43(4th respondent impleaded by order dated 25.2.2002 in W.A.M.P.No.22006/01. ... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A.414/01 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A.415/01K. Munavarkhan... Appellant/ PetitionerVS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building V FloorNo.15 Baracamba Road,New Delhi-110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls Road,Egmore, Madras- 83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27...Respondents/ Respondents W.A.415/011.A. Murugan2.S. Arjunan3.S. Partheepan4.V. Ravi5.G. Kumaresan6.G. Saravanakumar7.S. Gandhiban8.MuruganPetitioners/ Appellants in W.A.416/01Vs1.The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hansalaya Building' V Floor, No.15,Baracamba Road, New Delhi-110001.2.Regional Manager, Air India Ltd., Marshalls Road, Egmore, Madras-600008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Deputy Manager (Airport),Air India Ltd, Anna International Airport, Meenambakkam, Madras-600027.4.District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram.5.Air India Employees Guild, rep.by its Regional Secretary, Air India Units Complex, Pallavaram, Chennai-43.(5th respondent impleaded as perorder dated 25.2.2002made in WAMP.No.22007/2001)... Respondents/ Respondents W.A.416/01W.A.No.417/01C.R. Lakshmipathy... Appellant/ Petitioner in W.A.417/01VS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building V FloorNo.15 Baracamba Road,New Delhi-110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls Road,Egmore, Madras- 83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27... Respondents/ Respondents W.A.417/01 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A.418/011.R. Sathyamoorthy2.M. Selvam3.I. Sarangan4.P. Jayakumar5.R. Radhakrishnan6.K. Samuel7.V. Ramesh8.P. Mothish... appellants/ Petitioners in W.A. 418/01Vs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,represented by its Chairman & Managing DirectorHansalaya Building V FloorNo.15 Baracamba Road,New Delhi-110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India Ltd,Marshalls Road,Egmore, Madras- 83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A.418/01W.A.419/01V. Chandrasekaran... appellant/ PetitionerVS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. The Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Chennai-8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 274.District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram.5.Air India Employees Guild, rep.by its Regional Secretary, Air India Units Complex, Pallavaram, Chennai-43.(5th respondent impleaded as perorder dated 25.2.2002made in WAMP.No.22008/2001)6. Air India Air TransportServices LimitedAnna International AirportChennai AirportChenani-27.R6 impleaded as party respondent vide orderof Court dated 17.7.06 made in WAMP.Nos.2967 to 2974/04... Respondents/ Respondents W.A.419/01W.A. 420/011. P. Kannaiah2. R. Balakrishnan... Appellant/ Petitioner in W.A. 420/01Vs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. The Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Chennai-8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 274. Air India Express LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Chennai-85. Air India Air Transport Services LimitedAnna International AirportChennai-43.... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A. 420/01W.A. 421/011. A. Jayaseelan2. B. N. Swaminathan... Appellants/ Petitioners in W.A.421/01Vs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012.Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Chennai-83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27... Respondents/ Respondents in W.A. 421/01W.P.4793/20001.E. Dhanaraj2.E. Lawrence3.G.Padmanabhan4.S. Velu5.Y. Sundar Sing6.G. Vijayaragavan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.S.R . Venkatachalapathy8.N. Ramesh... Petitioners in W.P.4793/00VS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. The Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Chennai-83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27... Respondents/ Respondents W.P.4793/00V. Gnanasekaran... Petitioner 4245/03Vs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. The Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Madras-83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 274. District Employment officerEmployment Exchange, Kancheepuram.... Respondents/ Respondents 4245/03 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.19787/03K. Saravanan... Petitioner inW.P.19787/03VsThe Management of Air India Ltd,Marshal Road, EgmoreChennai- 600 008.... Appellant in WP/ 19787/03W.P. 5987/04T. Loganathan... Petitioner in W.P.5987/04Vs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Regional ManagerAir India LimitedMarshalls RoadEgmore, Chennai-83. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27... Respondents/ Respondents W.P.5987/04W.P.8881/04P. Ramesh... Petitioner in W.P. 8881/04VS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkam, Madras- 27... Respondents/Respondents W.P.8881/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P. 8897/04S. Ravi... Petitioner in W.P. 8897/04VS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27... Respondents/ Respondents W.P.8897/04M. Elumalai ...Petitioner in W.P.8903/04A.P. Srinivasan...Petitioner in W.P.9234/04W. Issac Newton...Petitioner in W.P.9256/04K. Durairaj...Petitioner in W.P.9288/04M. Krishnamoorthy...Petitioner in W.P.9289/04B. Sreenivasalu...Petitioner in W.P.9698/04D. Ramesh...Petitioner in W.P.10446/04N. Samuel Nelson Dhanraj ...Petitioner in W.P.11368/04S. Suresh ...Petitioner in W.P.14035/04M. Kanniappan...Petitioner in W.P.18408/04VS1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,New No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27...Respondents in W.P. 8903, 9234, 9256, 9288, 9289, 9698, 10446, 11368, 14035, 18408/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.29641/04S. Masilamani... Petitioner inW.P. 29641/04Vs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Air India Ltd rep by HRD Manager, New Building MeenambakkamChennai-273. Air India Limited rep by its Deputy General Manager HRDAir India unity ComplexGST RoadPallavaram Contonment, Chennai-43... Respondents inW.P.29641/04W.P.7013, 24788, 24793/05J. Irudayaraj... Petitioner in W.P.7013/05A. Selvakumar... Petitioner inW.P.24788/05R. Thomas.... Petitioner in W.P.24793/05Vs1. The Management of Air India Ltd,rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,Hansalaya Building V Floor,No.15, Baracemba RoadNew Delhi- 110 0012. Deputy Manager (Airport)Air India Ltd,Anna International AirportMeenambakkamMadras- 27... Respondents in W.P.7013, 24788, 24793/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentas against the common order of the learned single Judge dated31.8.2000 made in W.P.Nos. 15916/99,4271/00, 4624/00, 175/00,1752/00 2102/00, 17387/99, 16405/99, 3102/00, 3786/00, 2711/00,173/00, 17267/99, 174/00, 5697/00, 5924/00, 17318/99, 3591/00,101/00, 5934/,7977/00 and 19769/992. Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the writ of Mandamus, in W.P. 15916,4271/00, 17387/99, 3102/00, 3786/00, 17318/99, 5934/00, 7977/00,16405/99.3. directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to indulge in thepractice of employing persons such as the petitioners only for 90days and outing them thereafter and in particular direct therespondents 1 to 3 to frame a scheme for regular absorption of theworkmen like the petitioners and consequently direct the 4threspondent to maintain the seniority of the petitioners in theEmployment exchange so as to preserve their seniority in the eventof such of the petitioners who do not get regularisation on theframing of the scheme.(W.P. Sec. 3A 4624/00, and 173/00, 15916, 427/00, 17387/99,3102/00, 3786/00, 17318/99, 5934/00, 16405/99)4. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents management toreinstated the petitioner with order benefits in accordance withthe award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. Nos.22 and 30of 1991 dated 15.5.97 (in W.P.4264, 173/00)5. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to frame ascheme for the regularisation of the daily record employees of AirIndia Ltd, W.P. 175/006. W.P.1752/00 directing the respondents to frame a scheme ofthe regularisation of the daily rated employees engaged in theflight handling unit and catering Department of Air India at theInternational airport at Madras prior to this date and pendingframing of the scheme utilise the paths labour engaged in the pastincluding the Petitioners herein. (1752/00, 2711/00, 174/00,5697/00 and W.A.19769/99)7. directing the respondents to frame a scheme for theregularisation of the daily rated employees engaged in thecatering Department Engineering Department and Ground supportDepartment of Air India Ltd at the International Air Port atMadras prior to this date and pending framing of the schemeutilise the labour engaged in the past including the Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ herein.(W.P.17267/99 W.P.3591/00, in W.P. 417/01, (W.P.101/00,W.A.418/01, 2102/00)8. directing the respondents to frame a scheme for theregularisation of the daily rated employees engaged in the FlightHandling unit, catering department ground support division andservice Department of Air India Ltd at the International Airportat Madras prior to this date and pending framing of the scheme andutilise the labour engaged int he past including the petitionersherein. (2102/00, 3591/00, 101/00) W.P.5934/01, W.A. 419/01 W.P.No.4793/00 W.P. filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to frame a scheme for the regularisation of the dailyrated rated employees engaged in the Flight Handling unit,catering department grand support Division and Service Departmentof Air India ltd at the International Airport at Madras prior tothis date 15.2.2001 dated nil in 2102/00 and pending framing ofthe scheme and utilise the labour engaged int he past includingthe petitioners herein an issue orders.W.P. 4245/03:- Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3not to indulge in the practice of employing persons such as thepetitioner only 90 days and ousting them thereafter and inparticular direct the respondents 1 to 3 to frame a scheme forregular absorption of the workmen like the petitioner consequentlydirect the 4th respondent to maintain the seniority of thepetitioner in the Employment Exchange so as to preserve theirseniority in the event of such of the petitioner who do not getregulrisation on the framing of the scheme.W.P.19787/03:-Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentmanagement to reinstate the petitioner in service with otherbenefits in accordance with the common Award passed by theIndustrial Tribunal, chennai in I.D.No. 22 and 39 of 1991 dated15.5.97.W.P.5987/04, 5984, W.A.415/01:- Writ of mandamus directingthe respondents to frame a scheme for the regularisation of thedaily rated employees engaged in the Flight Handling unit of AirIndia Ltd, at the International Air Port at Chennai prior to thisdate and pending framing of the scheme utilise the labourengaged in the past including the petitioner herein.W.P. 8881/04:- Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents toframe a scheme for the regularisation of the daily rated employeesengaged in the Flight Handling unit of Air India Ltd, at theInternational Air Port at Chennai prior to this date and pendingframing of the scheme utilise the labour engaged in the past.including the petitioner herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.8897, 8903, 9234, 9256, 8288, 9289, 9698, 10446, 11368, 14035,18408/04:-Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to frame a scheme forthe regularisation of the daily rated employees engaged in theFlight Handling unit of Air India Ltd, at the International AirPort at Chennai prior to this date and pending framing of thescheme utilise the labour engaged in the past. including thepetitioenr herein.W.P.29641/04:-Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecosrds comprised in Ref.MAA/Per09A/220 dated 31.8.04 on the fileof Deputy General Manager , HRD Air India Ltd,/ 3rd Respondent andquash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent toconsider the representation dated 21.1.2004 in light of the orderof this court made in W.P.19305/04 dated 9.7.04.W.P. 7013/05, 24788/05, 24793/05:- Writ of mandamus directing therespondents to frame a scheme for the regularisation of the dailyrated employees engaged in the Flight Handling unit of Air IndiaLtd, at the International Air Port at Chennai prior to this dateand pending framing of the scheme utilise the labour engaged inthe past. including the petitioner herein.For appellants inW.As.399, 400,: Mr.V.Prakash, S.C. for402 to 409 & Mr.T.Ramkumar412 to 421/2001 andfor petitioner inWP.4793/2000: For appellants inW.As.401, 410 &411/2001: Mr.P.V.RamachandranFor petitioners inW.Ps.19787/2003,5987, 8881, 8897,8903, 9234, 9256,9288, 9289, 10446,: Mr.S.Gunaseelan11368, 18408, 9698,14035/2004& for petitioners in W.Ps.701324788 & 24793/2005: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners inW.P.4245/2003: Mrs.R.Srividya For Petitioner in W.P. 29641/04 : R. KarthikeyanFor R.1 to R.3 inW.As.399 to 421/01: Mr.R.Thiagarajan, S.C.forand for Air India M/s.Aiyar & Dolia and forin all the W.Ps.: M/s.S.Ramasubramanian & Associates in WP.4793/2000For R.5 (Union): Mr.V.Kalyanaraman W.A.399/01in W.A.399, 403, 416, 419R4 inW.A.403, 404, 405, 412, 413, 414,R2 in W.A. 401 & 411COMMON JUDGMENTELIPE DHARMARAO , J.All these matters are inextricably interconnected with eachother and hence all these matters are heard together and disposedof by this common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, theappellants in the writ appeals and the petitioners in the writpetitions are hereinafter be referred to as 'petitioners' and theManagement of Air India and other officials of Air India arecommonly referred to as the 'respondent-Management'.3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondentManagement operates international flights and several flights ofAir India originate or transit through Madras Airport and a numberof workers are employed by Air India in the catering departmentfor the purpose of cleaning the seats in the aircrafts, arrangingthe blankets and removing the wastages inside the aircraft etc.and for this purpose, Air India was engaging workmen on dailyrated basis for a period of 90 days and terminating them fromservice thereafter; that in the vacancies so caused, once againAir India calls for applications from the Employment Exchange andagain engages them for 90 days and thus repeats the same process.The petitioners would submit that the work requirement for AirIndia is one of permanent and perennial nature and Air Indiaengages workmen for short durations to deny them the benefit ofpermanency and other consequential benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The further case of the petitioners is that a number ofworkmen who were similarly engaged in the year 1985 raised anIndustrial Dispute against their non-employment and the IndustrialTribunal upheld the contentions of the workmen and directed that aScheme be framed for permanent absorption of these workers and asagainst the said Award of the Labour Court, the Management filed awrit petition and entered into a settlement with the Union thatraised the said dispute that it will absorb the workmen covered bythe Settlement and thereafter did not forward any Scheme forpermanent absorption of the workmen and these petitioners are notmembers of the said Union and that Settlement itself was only tocover the workmen who had the benefit of the Award.5. The petitioners would further submit that they wereregistered with the Employment Exchanges and they were called fora selection process which was held in Kancheepuram and thepetitioners were made to undergo physical endurance tests and onlyafter that they were selected and in fact, one of the candidatesby name C.Mohan, who participated in the physical endurance testdied during the selection process; that after the petitioners wereselected, they were given orders of appointment wherein they havespecifically said that the employment would not continue beyond 90days; that when the petitioners were ousted from service, onceagain they have to reapply and register themselves with theEmployment Exchange and lose their seniority in the Exchange forthis employment of 90 days; that it is not as if the work done bythe petitioners has ceased; that what the Management of Air Indiadoes is after ousting the petitioners from work, they once againgoes to the Employment Exchange and selects a new batch ofcandidates and use their service for 90 days and again oust them.With such averments, some of the petitioners sought for a Writ ofMandamus directing the respondent Management not to indulge in thepractice of employing persons such as the petitioners only for 90days and ousting them thereafter and also direct the respondentManagement to frame a Scheme for regular absorption of the workmenlike the petitioners and consequently direct the EmploymentExchange Officer to maintain the seniority of the petitioners inthe Employment Exchange so as to preserve their seniority.6. Earlier, some of the petitioners have raised IndustrialDisputes in I.D.Nos.22 of 1991 and 39 of 1991 before theIndustrial Tribunal, Chennai and the Tribunal, after conducting athorough enquiry, has ordered regularisation of the services ofthe workmen in I.D.No.22 of 1991 and 82 workmen in I.D.No.39 of1991 from the date of the said Award with continuity of serviceand backwages and other benefits. Since the respondent Managementhas not implemented the Award of the Tribunal, one of thebeneficiary of the said Award has filed W.P.No.19787 of 2003praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Management to reinstate him in service with other benefits inaccordance with the said Award dated 15.5.1997.7. In W.P.No.29641 of 2004, the petitioner prays to issue aWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprisedin Ref:MAA/PER 09A/220, dated 31.8.2004, on the file of the DeputyGeneral Manager-HRD, Air India Ltd. and quash the same andconsequently direct the third respondent to consider therepresentation dated 21.1.2004 in the light of the order of thisCourt made in W.P.No.19305 of 2004, dated 9.7.2004.8. A common counter affidavit has been filed by therespondent Management contending that they engage casualemployees, through Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram, on a day-to-day basis depending upon the flight handling requirements forloading and unloading of passenger baggage etc. since the ChennaiAirport comes under the jurisdiction of Kancheepuram District;that the company has its own permanent employees to carry out theflight handling requirements; that the casual employees areengaged to substitute the permanent loaders/cleaners/helpers whoremain absent from work and the work in question is casual innature and not perennial in the sense that it could not bedetermined in advance as to the number of persons who would berequired on a regular basis because of the very nature of thework itself, which involved arrival and departure of flights atMadras International Airport, which was not something happeningcontinuously throughout the day; that the permanent employees ofthe Company are represented by a recognised Union called Air IndiaEmployees' Guild, which has been in existence from the year 1985and this Union has signed so many settlements with the Managementunder the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and on severaloccasions cooperated with the Management in order to make theworking of the company viable; that in order to operateeconomically and to provide satisfactory services, it was decidedwith effect from 13.10.1999 that aircraft dressing (which involvedcleaning of the aircraft and allied activities) would be entrustedto a contractor and accordingly, after negotiations, aircraftdressing work for a period of three years was entrusted to M/s.SajCaterers, who have taken charge from 13.10.1999 and the company'spermanent employees doing aircraft cleaning were redeployed to doloading/unloading work; that the company is facing cumulativeloses over the years and therefore, it is considering variousschemes to reduce the manpower.9. The petitioners have filed a re-joinder stating that thepermanent work force of Air India is totally insufficient to meetthe work load and Air India consistently requires more than 200workmen every day for this purpose apart from the permanent workforce; that for this engagement, a healthy labour practice would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been to work out the exact work strength with marginalfluctuations and appoint persons on regular basis.10. The petitioners would furnish the details of number offlights that arrive every day and depart from the MadrasInternational Airport for which the baggage handling, cargohandling, cabin cleaning are done by employees apart from cargoflights and submit that for a single air craft, turn around timemay be notionally 30 minutes, but taking into account the numberof air crafts landing each day and the number of workers required,the statement made by Air India as if it does not require workerson regular basis is incorrect; that in fact, the workers presentlyengaged do more over time than duty hours; that in W.P.Nos.15915and 15916 of 1999, on 27.9.1999, this Court has ordered that nonew person should be recruited in the place of the petitioners;that in order to avoid giving work to the petitioners under theorders of this Court, Air India deployed the men working in thecatering and cabin cleaning areas for flight handling, baggagehandling etc. and inducted a contract labour system through ShajCaterers; that the interim order of this Court was first grantedon 27.9.1999 in W.P.Nos.15915 and 15916 of 1999 and the workers ofcabin cleaning was entrusted to Shaj Caterers on 13.10.1999, whichitself would show that entrusting of the work to Shaj Caterers isnot for any business reason but really to evade the orders of thisCourt; that the petitioners did not have any communication fromthe Union with regard to any proceedings or talks with theManagement or that the Union proposes to give up the benefitsaccorded to the petitioners by the Award in the aforesaiddisputes; that the signatory to the settlement did not have theauthority to represent the Union at the relevant point of timesince the term of office of the office bearers has expired and asettlement signed by such a person does not have authority torepresent the Union and the same is not binding on the Union; thatthe respondent and the Union have colluded in singling out certainworkmen to give them the benefit of permanent jobs while personslike the petitioners falling in the same class have been ignored.11. Since a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissedthe claim of some of the petitioners, they have preferred writappeals and since during the course of hearing of these writappeals, it has been brought to our notice that connected writpetitions are also pending, we ordered to post all these matterstogether and as has already been adverted to supra, commonarguments are advanced.12. During arguments, the learned senior counsel appearingfor the petitioners would brand the act of the respondent-Management as unfair labour practice, which is stoutly denied bythe learned senior counsel for the respondent Management, reading https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ out the impugned common order of the learned single Judge, insupport of his case.13. Admittedly, all the petitioners are X standard qualifiedand their services were engaged by the respondent Management asunskilled labour, through Employment Exchange, after a selectionprocess. The petitioners have asserted on oath, in theiraffidavits, that one of the candidates by name C.Mohan, whoparticipated in the physical endurance test died during theselection process, which shows the typical and complex nature ofthe selection test. It is also brought to the notice of thisCourt that on being selected to these posts, the petitioners losetheir seniority in the Employment Exchange since their names wouldbe removed from the roles of the Employment Exchange and they haveto register their names once again with the Employment Exchange.14. While on the part of the petitioners it is contended thatthe work is permanent and perennial in nature, on the part of therespondent-Management it has been contended that the casualemployees are engaged to substitute the permanentloaders/cleaners/helpers who remain absent from work and it ispurely dependent upon the casual reporting for work and they areconsidered for engagement only if there is a requirement andarrival and departure of flights fluctuate and do not take placethroughout the day. Therefore, even from the averments of thecounter affidavit of the respondent-Management it is clear that toget work, one has to wait endlessly, even for the whole day,during which time he cannot pursue any other job/work. The standof the respondent-Management that to cut-short the expenditure,such a procedure of appointing workers only for 90 days has beenadopted cannot be accepted, being against the interest of theworkmen, whose services were utilised at the cost of theirseniority in the Employment Exchanges and thereafter thrown like acurry leaf.15. The petitioners have produced the details showing thenumber of flights each day arrive and depart from the MadrasInternational Air Port for which the baggage handling, cargohandling, cabin cleaning are done. From the particularsfurnished on either side, it is seen that many flights throng theInternational Airport of Chennai for which the baggage handling,cargo handling, cabin cleaning are to be done by the employees.If really this work is not permanent and perennial in nature andif the petitioners are appointed only towards the posts ofpermanent employees who went on leave, there is no necessity forthe respondent-Management to engage workers, batch after batchthrough the Employment Exchange. A judicial note has to betaken to the fact that with many private operators operating theirflights from and through Chennai, as has been rightly submitted on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the part of the petitioners, the work may always be wantingworkers to attend, which is permanent and perennial in nature. 16. It has been brought to our notice that some of theemployees are appointed, with breaks, regularly. Havingappointed such workers through Employment Exchange at the cost oftheir seniority in the Employment Exchange, their services arebeing given an artificial break by the respondent-Management so asto deny them the benefits of permanent employment.17. It is more paining to note that after the interim orderof this Court on 27.9.1999 in in W.P.Nos.15915 and 15916 of 1999,the work of cabin cleaning was entrusted to Shaj Caterers on13.10.1999 by the respondent-Management, which appears to be toevade the orders of this Court. This Court is at a loss tounderstand such a hasty decision of the respondent-Management, atthe cost of the interest of the petitioners and other suchsimilarly placed employees, who were appointed through a selectionprocess.18. At this stage, the learned senior counsel for therespondent-Management would submit that the work being seasonal,no direction for regularisation could be given and in support ofhis arguments, he has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court inOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. vs. ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGH[2007-I-LLJ-704], wherein when casual/temporary workmen engagedfor geological surveys have sought direction to regularize theservices of the workmen with 240 days service, the Apex Court hasobserved:“Having regard to the nature and period of employment ofthe workers, it would create difficulties if they wereto be treated on par with regular employees as directedby the single Judge and more so, if they were to benotionally treated as regularized from May 1999 asdirected by the Division Bench.”But, in the case on hand, as has been held supra, it is not aseasonal work, but a permanent and perennial work and therefore,when the services of the petitioners were utilised with artificialbreaks, even though there is sufficient work in the nature ofpermanent and perennial, in order to deny them the regularisationand other benefits, the same yardstick as has been observed by theApex Court in the above cited judgment, cannot be applied to thecase on hand and thus, the above judgment of the Apex Court iswell distinguishable.19. The learned senior counsel for the respondent-Managementwould also rely on a judgment of the Apex Court in REGIONALMANAGER, SBI vs. MAHATMA MISHRA [JT 2006(10) SC 179], wherein ithas been held: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “Unfair labour practice is not to be readily inferred.Before a conclusion in that behalf is drawn, theconditions precedent therefor must be satisfied. TheLabour Court failed to show as to how the appellant canbe said to have taken recourse to unfair labourpractice. It was not a case where the respondent wasbeing appointed consistently for a number of years withartificial breaks. It was also not a case where thepurport and object for such appointment was to violatethe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.”20. It was a case where temporary workman for a fixed periodwas appointed and his services were terminated since hisappointment was made in violation of the rules and regulations ofthe Bank. In such circumstances, the Apex Court has observedthat the order of reinstatment passed in favour of the workman isbad. In the case on hand, no such illegal appointments are made.All the petitioners were appointed by notification, throughEmployment Exchange and after being selected in the EnduranceTest, wherein even a person has died, as has been submitted by thepetitioners in their affidavit, which remained unchallenged.Therefore, the above judgment of the Apex Court is also welldistinguishable and the same cannot be applied to the facts of thepresent case.21. The respondent-Management has submitted that the 5threspondent Union has entered into many settlements with theManagement including the one regarding the implementation of theAward in I.D.Nos.22 and 39 of 1991, dated 15.5.1997 and they arebinding on all the workmen. However, the petitioners havesubmitted that the said Settlement, dated 9.12.1999, is unfair,illegal and not done in accordance with the bye-laws of the Unionand the Union cannot barter away the relief accorded to individualworkman relating to the non-employment without their expressconsent and that the signatory to the Settlement did not have theauthority to represent the Union at the relevant point of time andthe term of office of the office bearers having since expired, aSettlement signed by such a person does not have authority torepresent the Union. 22. In this context, the learned senior counsel for therespondent-Management would argue that since such disputedquestions of fact are involved, the writ petitions themselves arenot maintainable. In support of his arguments, the learned seniorcounsel for the respondent-Management would rely on the Full Benchdecision of this Court in P.PITCHUMANI etc. vs. THE MANAGEMENT OFSRI CHAKRA TYRES LTD. [2004(3) CTC 1] and an unreported decisionof the First Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.415 and 416 of2006, dated 18.4.2006 (CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/s.METAL BOXINDIA LTD. Etc., vs. METAL BOX COMPANY WORKERS UNION etc.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. In both those matters, to establish the argument that theaction of the Union is malafide in entering into a settlement withthe Management, no material has been placed on record andtherefore, the Court felt that such disputed questions of factcannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. But, here, there ismore than sufficient material on hand to construe that the actionof the 5th respondent Union in entering into the Settlement, dated9.12.1999, with the respondent-Management is not in the interestof workmen particularly, as against the Award passed by theTribunal in I.D.Nos.22 and 39 of 1991, dated 15.5.1997, which hasbecome final, wherein the Tribunal has considered, in depth, allthe facts and circumstances of the case, after an elaborateenquiry and has answered in favour of the workmen. 24. The respondent-Management, instead of implementing theAward of the Tribunal in I.D.Nos.22 and 39 of 1991, dated15.5.1997, has paid a deaf ear to the same, compelling one of thebeneficiaries of the said Award to knock the doors of this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filingW.P.No.19787 of 2003. What prompted the 5th respondent Union toenter into such an ex facie illegal settlement, dated 9.12.1999,with the respondent-Management, at the cost of the welfare of theemployees, is a Million Dollar question, which was not evenattempted to be explained by the 5th respondent either in theircounter or during the course of arguments. Further more, thecounter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent Union is completelysilent about the allegations made against them and not even aformal denial of the allegations of the petitioners could be seenin the entire counter-affidavit of the 5th respondent Union, whichthrows considerable doubt about the genuineness and authenticityof the Union to enter into such a Settlement with the respondent-Management, that too betraying the trust reposed on them by itsMembers. The clever silence on the part of the 5th respondentspeaks volumes in support of the case of the petitioners andagainst the respondent-Management. We are prompted to commentso, because of the one-sided wordings in the so-called 'interimsettlement' dated 9.12.1999 entered into by the 5th respondent withthe respondent-Management. Certain clauses of the said settlementare extracted hereunder to show, how the 5th respondent Union hasgiven a go-bye to the interest of the workers in favouring theManagement and giving a free-hand to the respondent-Management todeal with such a sensitive issue, involving the livelihood ofworkers:"25.Provided that in no case shall any individual fromthis Annexure be engaged for more than 90 dayscontinuously as a Casual Labour. Upon the expiry of 90days of actual engagement as Casual Labour, whethercontinuously or otherwise, the right of that person to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ get engagement as a Casual Labour shall cease and theManagement shall thereafter pass on to the next personor persons in the list in Annexure in accordance withthe serial numbers subject again to the criteriaindicated herein. In the event of any person in thesaid list whose turn it is to be engaged for casualwork, depending upon the need of such engagement by theManagement, if he does not turn up or take up thedeployment as per his turn, the Management shall proceedto engage the next person in the Annexure for thepurpose of casual engagement in accordance with thisclause. The Management shall have the right to deletehis name from the Annexure.26. It is made clear that it is not incumbent upon theManagement to engage all or any of the persons whosenames are found in the Annexure hereto but suchengagement shall be at the discretion of the Managementdepending upon the need or occasion for engagement ofcasual labour by the Management for the purpose ofloading and unloading work at Chennai Airport....29. This interim arrangement shall not bestow any rightupon any of these individuals engaged as casual labour,arising out of this arrangement, any right to claim ordemand permanent employment in any capacity with theManagement"25. As has been observed supra, this settlement givessweeping powers to the Management and moreover, it appears thatthe Management is successful in getting such of their conditionsincluded in the settlement, keeping at stake the welfare of theemployees, through the 5th respondent Union, which has been enteredinto only to avoid implementing the Award of the Tribunal inI.D.Nos.22 and 39 of 1991, dated 15.5.1997. Such a practice ofthe respondent-Management has to be depricated and has to be dealtwith seriously, so as to restrain them from repeating the same infuture. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the workmencannot be thrown from pillar to post to reap the benefits of theiraccrued rights and thus the judgments relied on by the learnedsenior counsel for the respondent-Management have no applicationto the facts of the case on hand.26. The learned senior counsel for the respondent-Managementhas also cited the following judgments:1.R.K.PANDA AND OTHERS vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA ANDOTHERS [(1994) 5 SCC 304;2.GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD, UKAI vs. HIND MAZDOOR SABHA[AIR 1995 SC 1893];3.HIMANSHU KUMAR VIDYARTHI & OTHERS vs. STATE OF BIHARAND OTHERS [1998-II-LLJ 15]; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS vs. NATIONALUNION WATER FRONT WORKERS AND OTHERS [2001-II-LLJ 1087];5.HARI SHANKAR SARMA AND OTHERS vs. M/S.ARTIFICIAL LIMBSMANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND OTHERS [AIR 2002 SC 226];6.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI vs.K.V.SHRAMIK SANGH AND OTHERS [2002-II-LLJ 544];7.ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIALTD. & ANOTHER [JT 2003 (1) SC 465= 2003 (4) SUPREME121];8.SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI(3) AND OTHERS [(2006) 4 SCC 1];9.SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI(2) AND OTHERS [(2006) 4 SCC 44] and10.INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. vs. WORKMEN,INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [(2007) 1 SCC 408].27. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid downby the Apex Court in the above judgments. However, for the abovediscussed factual matrix of the case wherein the services of thepetitioners were engaged through Employment Exchange on aselection process and was given artificial breaks to deny themtheir due, we feel, none of the above cited judgments of the ApexCourt would come to the rescue of the case of the respondent-Management and therefore, the propositions laid down by the ApexCourt in the above judgments, cannot be applied to the facts ofthe case on hand.28. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that because ofthe attitude of the respondent-Management in giving artificialbreaks to the workmen, who have been appointed through EmploymentExchange, they are losing their seniority in the EmploymentExchange and thus, if they want to re-register their names withthe Employment Exchange they must forego their former seniorityand thus, their getting any chance of attending any interviewthrough Employment Exchange is bleak and by the time, they get achance of attending an interview, they may be over-aged also. Itis also to be pointed out that all the petitioners are either late30's or early 40's and therefore, their chance of gettingalternate jobs, through employment exchanges is also very remote.29. When the work is permanent and perennial in nature, ashas been observed supra, the respondent-Management, aninstrumentality of the State, ought not to have resorted toretrench the people for every 90 days and appoint fresh hands orappoint the same hands after a considerable break, that too at thecost of their seniority in the Employment Exchanges. Thispractice adopted on the part of the respondent-Management, apublic sector undertaking, is highly condemnable and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unquestionably amounts to unfair labour practice. 30. In AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION vs. UNITED LABOURUNION [(1997) 9 SCC 377], under similar circumstances, a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court has observed as follows: “.... After recent liberalised free economy private andmultinational entrepreneurship has gained ascendancy andentrenched into wider commercial production andservices, domestic consumption goods and large-scaleindustrial productions. Even some of the publiccorporations are thrown open to the private national andmultinational investments. It is axiomatic, whether ornot industry is controlled by Government or publiccorporations by statutory form or administrative clutchor private agents, juristic persons, corporation wholeor corporation sole, their constitution, control andworking would also be subject to the same constitutionallimitations in the trinity, viz., Preamble, theFundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. Theythrow open an element of public interest in its working.They share the burden and shoulder constitutionalobligations to provide facilities and opportunitiesenjoined in the Directive Principles, the Preamble andthe Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution.The word control, therefore, requires to be interpretedin the changing commercial scenario broadly in keepingwith the aforesaid constitutional goals andperspectives”. 26. From the above discussion, the following principleswould emerge: (1) The constitution of the corporation orinstrumentality or agency or corporation aggregate orcorporation sole is not of sole material relevance todecide whether it is by or under the control of theappropriate Government under the Act. (2) If it is a statutory corporation, it is aninstrumentality or agency of the State. If it is acompany owned wholly or partially by a share capital,floated from public exchequer, it gives indicia that itis controlled by or under the authority of theappropriate Government. (3) In commercial activities carried on by a corporationestablished by or under the control of the appropriateGovernment having protection under Articles 14 and 19(2), it is an instrumentality or agency of the State. (4) The State is a service corporation. It acts throughits instrumentalities, agencies or persons natural or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ juridical. (5) The governing power, wherever located, must besubject to the fundamental constitutional limitationsand abide by the principles laid in the DirectivePrinciples. (6) The framework of service regulations made in theappropriate rules or regulations should be consistentwith and subject to the same public law, principles andlimitations. (7) Though the instrumentality, agency or personconducts commercial activities according to businessprinciples and are separately accountable under theirappropriate bye-laws or Memorandum of Association, theybecome the arm of the Government. (8) The existence of deep and pervasive State controldepends upon the facts and circumstances in a givensituation and in the altered situation it is not thesole criterion to decide whether the agency orinstrumentality or persons is by or under the control ofthe appropriate Government. (9) Functions of an instrumentality, agency or personare of public importance following public interestelement. (10) The instrumentality, agency or person must have anelement of authority or ability to effect the relationswith its employees or public by virtue of power vestedin it by law, Memorandum of Association or bye-laws orArticles of Association. (11) The instrumentality, agency or person renders anelement of public service and is accountable to healthand strength of the workers, men and women, adequatemeans of livelihood, the security for payment of livingwages, reasonable conditions of work, decent standard oflife and opportunity to enjoy full leisure and socialand cultural activities to the workmen. (12) Every action of the public authority, agency orinstrumentality or the person acting in public interestor any act that gives rise to public element should beguided by public interest in exercise of public power oraction hedged with public element and is open tochallenge. It must meet the test of reasonableness,fairness and justness. (13) If the exercise of the power is arbitrary, unjustand unfair, the public authority, instrumentality,agency or the person acting in public interest, though https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the field of private law, is not free to prescribeany unconstitutional conditions or limitations in theiractions. 27. It must be based on some rational and relevantprinciples. It must not be guided by irrational orirrelevant considerations and all their actions shouldsatisfy the basic law requirements of Article 14. Thepublic law interpretation is the basic tool ofinterpretation in that behalf relegating common lawprinciples to purely private law field.” 31. Thus, as has been held by the Apex Court in the abovejudgment, there are constitutional limitations in the trinity,viz., Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the DirectivePrinciples on the respondent-Management, a public sectorundertaking, and it share the burden and shoulder constitutionalobligations to provide facilities and opportunities enjoined inthe Directive Principles, the Preamble and the Fundamental Rightsenshrined in the Constitution and not to resort to such illegalunfair labour practices, as has been clearly established in thiscase.32. In BAJAJ AUTO LTD. vs. BHOJANE GOPINATH D. [(2004) 9 SCC488], the Apex Court has rejected to interfere with the findingsof the Industrial Court, confirmed by the High Court, holding thatthe practice of employing workmen each year for seven months anddiscontinuing their services by following rotational system ofappointing different sets of workmen by rotation displacing theworkmen appointed earlier as 'unfair labour practice'. Since inthe case on hand also, admittedly, the respondent-Management isemploying the persons batch after batch and discontinuing theirservices by following rotational system, it would squarely fallwithin the definition of 'unfair labour practice' as has been heldby the Apex Court in the above judgment.33. In GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY vs. RATHOD LABHUBECHAR [(2001) 3 SCC 574], considering the case of daily ratedlabourers engaged dehors the rules as plumbers, carpenters,sweepers, pump operators, helpers and masons by a fully State-aided University and continued as such for long period of 10 yearsor so without considering their regularisation, the Apex Court hasheld: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Where work taken is not for a short period or limitedfor a season or where work is not of a part-time natureand if pattern shows that work is to be takencontinuously year after year, there is no justificationto keep such persons hanging as daily-rate workers. Insuch a situation a legal obligation is cast on anemployer; if there be vacant post, to fill it up withsuch workers in accordance with rules, if any, and wherenecessary by relaxing the qualifications, where longexperience could be equitable with such qualifications.If no posts exist then duty is cast to assess thequantum of such work and create such equivalent postsfor their absorption.... It is true, creation of postsdoes involve financial implication. Hence financialhealth of a particular institution plays an importantrole which courts also keep in mind. The court doesexercise its restraint where fact are such where extentof creation of posts create financial disability. Butthis does not give largess to an institution to engagelarger number of daily-wage workers for a long number ofyears without absorbing them or creating posts, whichconstitutes an unfair labour practice."It is also held in the above judgment as follows:"Where very large number of workers are required to beabsorbed, the Supreme Court has accepted the formula inthe past to absorb such employees under a scheme in aphased manner. This is done to work it out within itsfinancial means. Every liberty and entitlement isalways subject to such financial limits. But inconsidering such absorption, the financial means have tobe stretched to the maximum but should not be a defencewith motive to dis-entitle the claim of the workmen.However, clause 1(d) is silent as to what number ofposts the Government is creating initially for the firstphase of absorption. Therefore, it is necessary toemphasise that in creating the posts, the Governmentshould see that maximum posts are created to absorbmaximum of such workers who have completed ten years ason 31.12.2000, as these workers have more than eligibleclaim. Thereafter, even reassessment for additionalposts, about which we are referring should be done inthe same perspective. One can hope and trust, theGovernment who is the guardian of the people and isobliged under Article 38 of the Constitution, to securea social order for the promotion of welfare of thepeople, to eliminate inequalities in status, will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ endeavour to give maximum posts even at the first stageof absorption, and do the same in the same spirit forcreating additional posts after an inquiry to find whatfurther number of additional posts are required forregularising such other daily-rated workers, and afterassessing it, to create such additional posts for theirabsorption."34. As in the above case, in the case on hand also, thepetitioners have sought a direction to the respondent-Managementto frame a Scheme. As has been held by the Apex Court in theabove judgment, since such formula was accepted by the Apex Court,to absorb such employees under a Scheme in a phased manner, wefeel it appropriate, following the above judgment of the ApexCourt, to allow the prayer of the petitioners, by directing therespondent-Management to frame a Scheme.35. Unfortunately, the learned single Judge has failed toassess the case in its proper perspective and has landed in anerroneous conclusion of dismissing the writ petitions filed by thepetitioners and hence, the said decision of the learned singleJudge, needs to be set aside. For all the above discussions, all the writ appeals and thewrit petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connectedMiscellaneous Petitions are closed. The respondent-Management isdirected to frame a Scheme, as has been prayed for in the writpetitions and the writ appeals, within a period of six weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1.The Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd., 'Hansalaya Buklding' V Floor, No.15,Baracamba Road, New Delhi-110001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Regional Manager, Air India Ltd., Marshalls Road, Egmore, Madras-600008.3.Air India Ltd (Deputy Manager Airport), Anna International Airport, Meenambakkam, Madras-600027.4.District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram.5. The Deputy Manager AirportAir India LimitedAnna International AirportMeenambakkam, Chennai-27.6. Air India Air Transport Service Ltd.,AVC Building PallavaramChennai-43.17 ccs to Mr. S. Gunaseelan, Advocate, sr. 41637 to 41372 and41620 to 416304 ccs to Mr.P.V. Ramachandran, Advocate, sr. 41355, 41440 to 414421 cc to M/s. Aiyar and Dolia, Advocate, sr. 414301 cc to Mr.P. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Sr. 414491 cc to mr.R. Karthikeyan, Advocate, sR. 414284 ccs to Mr.T. Ramkumar, Advocate, Sr. 42249, 41450, 41448W.A. Nos.399 to 421/2001 etc.MRD (CO)kk 1/8