Disposed

Air India Sats Airport Services Private Limited v. Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment

Delhi HC10 Feb 2020W.P.(C)/1536/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice regarding compliance with regulations mandating regular employment for ground handling. Court treated the petition as a representation, asked respondent to act furnishing notice, and prevented precipitate action pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Treated petition as representation; no precipitate action till final decision; petitioner to be heard.

Air India Sats Airport Services Private Limited Vs Union… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~73

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1536/2020 & CM APPL. 5363/2020

¶4

AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Dr. Saif Mahmood, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for UOI alongwith Ms. Rahella Khan, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 10.02.2020

¶12

CM APPL. 5364/2020 (Exemption)

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed-off.

¶15

W.P.(C) 1536/2020 & CM APPL. 5363/2020

¶16

Issue notice.

¶17

The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶18

At joint request, the petition is taken up for disposal.

¶19

This petition impugns the Show Cause Notice dated 28.10.2019 issued by the respondent asking the petitioner to produce the licence for engaging contractual services.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground handling services can be rendered only by regular employees. The sample contract of one such employee is annexed as Annexure-P-5. He relies upon

¶21

Regulation-5 of Notification dated 26.10.2018 notified by Airports Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018. It reads as under:-

¶22

“ 5. Security Protocol.-

¶23

(1) All ground handling services shall be provided only through the regular employees of the entities permitted under these regulations;

¶24

(2) No hiring of employees through handling contractor or manpower supplier shall be permitted;

¶25

(3) An airline and agency allowed to carry out ground handling services at the airport shall ensure compliance to security provisions as required under any law for the time being in force; and

¶26

(4) The ground handling agency, unless it acquire the status of regulated agent or otherwise authorized to do so by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, shall not undertake the security functions listed in paragraph 1 of AVSEC Order referred to in sub-regulation (2)of regulation 3.”

¶27

He also relies upon Regulation 2(f) of the said Notification, which

¶28

reads as under:-

¶29

“ Regulation 2(f)- Regular employee means a person employed and paid for a regular work directly by the employer without the intervention of a contractor; and does not include contract labourers as defined in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.”

¶30

He submits that there is no question of the petitioner breaching the aforestated stipulated caveat for ground handling services, from contractual employees; that the petitioner has all-along been vigilant in providing services as per law. He submits that indeed the emoluments paid and benefits made available to its employees are far better than statutory obligations. Nevertheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to assist the

¶31

respondent in arriving at a reasoned decision in the matter.

¶32

In view of the above, let this petition be treated as the petitioner’s representation to the respondent. Should additional documents be required by the respondent, the same shall be supplied to it, within two weeks of receipt of fresh notice by the respondent. The petitioner shall be duly heard by the respondent. However, till a final decision is taken by the respondent, no precipitate action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶33

Should the petitioner have any grievance, it will be open for it to pursue its remedies as may be available in law.

¶34

The petition, alongwith pending application, is disposed-off in the above terms.

¶35

A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

¶36

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶37

FEBRUARY 10, 2020

¶38

Air India Sats Airport Services Private Limited v. Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Air India Sats Airport Services Private Limited v. Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal College of Education and Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Sanjay Bhandari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sarju Rai Memorial Degree College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sayala College Sayala Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

M/S. Bas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karamvir Singh

S K Cosmetics Vs the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Ors.

M. D. Overseas Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Alok Kumar Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Jain Vs Gopal Singh Bisht

M/S Mathiyan Construction Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Shri Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. Vs Manjinder Singh Sirsa & Ors.

Mandeep Kaur & Ors. Vs Manjinder Singh Sirsa & Ors.

Arvind Kumar & Anr. Vs M/S Shriram General Ins Co. Ltd. & Anr.