Dismissed

M. Mohanan v. Direecgtor, Airport Authority of India

Kerala HC22 May 2009WP(C)/8296/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner, employed by a contractor deployed by the Airport Authority of India, was not entitled to regularization as the contract was genuine and not a sham. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim absorption in the principal estab

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Ext.P13 award upheld; Petitioner not entitled to regularization.

M. Mohanan Vs Direecgtor, Airport Authority of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 8296 of 2009(F) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

M. MOHANAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, DAIVATHINVILAKATHU VEEDU, T.C NO. 49/352(1), P.O. MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE DIRECTOR, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, (INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS DIVISION), TRIVANDRUM - 695 008.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), T.C 28/157, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶14

THE EX-SERVICEMEN'S INDUSTRIAL GUARDS (P) LTD., T.C. NO. 16/321, EASWARAVILASOM ROAD, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN & SRI.K.G.MOHANDAS PAI SC, TVM AIRPORT ATY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.GIRI, J

¶18

W.P.(C).8296 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2009

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner challenges Ext.P13 award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

¶22

cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. It is his case that he was deployed to work as a Security Guard (Watch and Ward) at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport by the 3^rd respondent, an agency which provides Security Guards in different establishments. The petitioner was deployed with effect from 10.2.1996 and he worked uninterruptedly till 31.12.1996 and completed 240 working days. That he was denied employment when the contract expired on 31.12.1996; that he was later employed by the Airports Authority as he was later appointed as Bird Scarer by order dated 24.5.1997. But he was not allowed to join duty. He had approached this court with O.P.No.9328/98 which was disposed of declaring that the rights of the parties are

¶23

W.P.(C).8296 of 2009

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

regulated by the decision of the Apex Court in Steel

¶26

Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers {2001 (5) SCALE 626 = {2001(7)

¶27

SCC 1} . Ultimately, the following issues came to be referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum Labour Court:

¶28

(a) Whether Shri.M.Mohanan a security guard engaged through contractor M/s.ExServicemens' Industrial Guards (P) Ltd., in the establishment of Airport Authority of India at Trivandrum Airport is entitled to regularisation by the Airport Authority of India?

¶29

(b) Whether the contract between the Airport Authority of India and M/s.Ex-Servicemen's Industrial Guards (P) Ltd., was genuine one or a sham contract? If so, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

¶30

The Tribunal appreciated the evidence

¶31

elaborately. It was found by the Tribunal that the

¶32

workman was employed by the contractor. The Tribunal relied on the statement filed by the contractor himself.

¶33

W.P.(C).8296 of 2009

¶34

:: 3 ::

¶35

The Tribunal also noticed the fact that the worker was

¶36

not in a position to produce any evidence to show that the Airports Authority has actually exercised any disciplinary control over him. His wages were paid by the 3^rd respondent. He was not, at any point of time, employed by the Airports Authority. It was a case where he was employed by the contractor and not a case where the Airports Authority engaged his services through the medium of a contractor. It was, therefore, found by the Tribunal that it is a case where the Airports Authority had only engaged a contractor and the contractor had deployed the services of the petitioner.

¶37

The second issue was considered by the Tribunal and it was found that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the contract between the Airports Authority and the contractor was a sham one; which finding alone could have led the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the contract workers are entitled to be

¶38

W.P.(C).8296 of 2009

¶39

:: 4 ::

¶40

treated as regular workers of the establishment. This, the Tribunal came to the conclusion, on the basis of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others {2001(7) SCC 1}, especially paragraph 65 thereof. The agreement between the Airports Authority and the contractor Ext.W1 was also considered and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the agreement cannot be considered as a sham one. Consequent to the findings made above, the Tribunal passed the award holding that the workman was not entitled to any relief. This has been challenged in this writ petition.

¶41

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶42

and the learned counsel for the Airports Authority.

¶43

The claim made by the petitioner for absorption in the establishment of the Airports Authority on the ground that he was a contract worker to a great extent will have to be negatived in the light

¶44

W.P.(C).8296 of 2009

¶45

:: 5 ::

¶46

of the law declared by the Supreme Court in SAIL {2001(7) SCC 1}. The Supreme Court has categorically held in the said case, overruling the earlier view taken by the Supreme Court in Air India

¶47

Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union

¶48

{1997 (9) SCC 377} that contract labourers, per se, are not entitled to regularisation merely because it is found that the principal employer ought not to have engaged contract labourers. A direction in that behalf can be issued only if it is found that the very contract between the principal employer and the contractor is a

¶49

sham one. The Tribunal has categorically held that there are no materials to come to the conclusion that the contract is a sham one.

¶50

I have gone through the terms of the

¶51

agreement as also the findings of the Tribunal in this regard. I am unable to find any aspect which warrants interference by this court.

¶52

W.P.(C).8296 of 2009

¶53

:: 6 ::

¶54

Going by the averments in the writ

¶55

petition itself, it seems to be fairly clear that even according to the petitioner that he was deployed by the 3^rd respondent at the Airport. It is, therefore, not a case where the Airports Authority has engaged the petitioner through the medium of a contractor. This aspect, therefore, has been correctly found by the Tribunal. I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P13.

¶56

Writ petition is bereft of any merit and hence

dismissed.

Sd/- ( V.GIRI) Judge

sk/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

M. Mohanan v. Direecgtor, Airport Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Mohanan v. Direecgtor, Airport Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sindhu Vs Pankajarajan

Manimekhala Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

M.K.Sahadevan Vs the Registrar of Societies

Rev.Fr.George Rebeiro Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

B.Ramdas Associates Vs Chief Postmaster General

M.C.Sajeed Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others