Sixteen petitioners, contract labourers at J.P. Narayan Airport, invoked writ jurisdiction seeking equal pay and benefits claiming similarity of work with regular employees. The Court held that as petitioners are employed by contractors, not the Authority, they cannot claim equal pay or seek relief against the Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3991 of 2011
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The Union of India Through The Secretary Department of Civil Aviation, A- Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath , New Delhi 2. Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, A- Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath , New Delhi 3. Airport Authority of India, Airport Division, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi through its Director 4. Director, Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.3991 of 2011 dt.05-01-2016
2/7
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aashish Giri
Mr. Pranav Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Pankaj
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-01-2016
Heard Sri Aashish Giri, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Pranav Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Dr. Pankaj, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3 to 6/Airport Authority of India.
Sixteen petitioners, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for following reliefs:-
| (i) | To issue an appropriate |
|---|---|
| writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of equal pay scale to that of permanent employees working in Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna plus other consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment and further direct the respondents to payment petitioners the difference in arrear of salary accrued to them from the date of initial appointment as the petitioners are discharging similar services for last fifteen years. |
Patna High Court CWJC No.3991 of 2011 dt.05-01-2016
3/7
Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to fix the scale of pay for the petitioners.
(iv) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
A plea has been taken that petitioners are doing same work, which are being discharged by the regular employee of the respondent/Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority’) and as such, they are entitled to get same pay scale, which are being provided to the regular employee of the Authority. To substantiate similarity of the nature of work, petitioners have elaborately given details in paragraph – 7 of the writ petition, which is as follows:-
| Regular employees of Airport | Petitioner employees through |
|---|---|
| Authorities | contractor |
| Working hours | Working hours |
| 1. 06.00 hrs to 14.00 hrs 2. 14.00 hrs. to 22.00 hrs |
1. 06.00 hrs to 14.00 hrs 2. 14.00 hrs to 22.00 hrs |
| Cleaning the floor with the help of broom/mopping of |
Clearing the floor with the help of broom/mopping of |
| floor/washing of floor | floor/washing of floor |
| To pick the garbage from dustbin and to put the same in a common pit. |
To pick the garbage from dustbin and to put the same in a common pit. |
| Cleaning and washing of chambers and office rooms, cabins. |
Cleaning and washing of chambers and office rooms, cabins. |
| X X X | Toilet cleaning |
| Carrying the luggage and baggage. |
Carrying the luggage and baggage. |
| Tea and water serving | Tea and water serving |
| Cleaning and washing of whole airport area including Air Traffic Control (ATC) |
Cleaning and washing of whole airport area including Air Traffic Control (ATC) |
| X X X | Cleaning of parking area. |
Patna High Court CWJC No.3991 of 2011 dt.05-01-2016
4/7
It has also been indicated that petitioners are rendering the same kind of services, which are being rendered by the regular employee. Sri Giri, learned counsel for petitioners, to substantiate the claim, has firstly placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court reported in 1988 (3) Supreme Court Cases 354 (Jaipal –Vs.- State of Haryana) and 2010 (7) Supreme Court Cases 739 (U.P. Land Development Corporation –Vs.- Md. Khurshid Ahmad) on the point that in equal circumstances, if the petitioners are discharging their services, they are entitled to get equal pay. On the point of maintainability of the writ petition, he has relied on (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 449 (Delhi International Airport Private Limited –Vs.- Union of India and Others) , 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 611 (Parimal Chandra Raha And Others –Vs.- Life Insurance Corporation of India And Others) and (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 630 (Bhel Workers Assn. –Vs.- Union of India) .
In respect of Delhi International Airport Private Limited case (supra), Sri Giri has placed reliance on paragraph 4, 15, 28, 37, 40, 47, 59, 69 and 70. Similarly, in respect of Parimal Chandra Raha’s case (supra), he has referred to paragraph 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 16, 19, 20, 29, 30 & 31 and in (1985) 1 S.C.C. 630 (supra), he has referred to paragraph 1, 6 and 7. Besides this, he has argued that as per the provision contained in Contract Labour Act also, the petitioners are entitled to get similar
Patna High Court CWJC No.3991 of 2011 dt.05-01-2016
5/7
status as of the regular employee, since as per Contract Act, they are deemed to be employee of the Airport Authority of India and as such, the writ petition is maintainable and therefore, he makes a prayer for allowing the writ petition.
Dr. Pankaj, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 to 6/Authority, by way of referring to averment made in counter affidavit, submits that petitioners are not employees of the Authority. Specifically, in paragraph – 16 of the counter affidavit, a stand has been taken that the Airport Authority of India is not the employer of petitioners, rather for the purposes of Environmental Support Services (Up-keeping) work at Jai Prakash Narain International Airport at Patna, the Authority had invited tender and had estimated the cost for earlier three years and as such, work is being done by the contractors on the basis of tender notice. In sum and substance, it has been argued that petitioners are not at all employee of the Authority. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent/Authority that petitioners, being not employee of the Authority, which is State, are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court and as such, a prayer has been made to reject the writ petition. Dr. Pankaj, learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to Annexure – A to the counter affidavit i.e. Press Notice in respect of tender for work of Environmental Support Services (Upkeeping).
Patna High Court CWJC No.3991 of 2011 dt.05-01-2016
6/7
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In the writ petition also, it has not been categorically stated that the petitioners are directly employee of the Authority. There is no specific statement that they are employee of the Authority, but a plea has been taken that they are under the control and supervision of Airport Authority of India. On the basis of pleading, it is evident that petitioners were employed as labourer by the contractor of the Authority, whereas, the petitioners have not even bothered to implead their contractor(s), who are directly employer of the petitioners. So far as equal pay for equal work is concerned, that is required to be examined in the similar situation and circumstances. The petitioners are not directly appointees of the Authority, rather they are working as contract labourers of the contractors, who have been granted work pursuant to the tender notice invited for grant of work for Environmental Support Services (Up-keeping) at J.P.Narayan International Airport at Patna and as such, there is no question of claiming for equal pay for equal work, since in this case, employer of petitioners is not the Authority. In cases referred by learned counsel for petitioners on the point of equal pay for equal work i.e. Jaipal’s case (supra) and U.P. Land Development Corporation’s case (supra), the nature of work was same and employer was also same, whereas in the present case petitioners are not employees of the Authority. Accordingly, petitioners may not get any help from the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. So far as Delhi
Patna High Court CWJC No.3991 of 2011 dt.05-01-2016
7/7
International Airport Private Limited case (supra) and Parimal Chandra Raha’s case (supra) are concerned, those cases were decided on entirely different facts, not in the similar situation. So far as 1985(1) S.C.C. 630 (supra) is concerned, the claim of petitioners was rejected by the Apex Court.
Keeping in view the fact that in the present case, it is evident that petitioners are not employees of the Authority i.e. respondent no. 3 to 6 but employees of contractors and as such, they may not be entitled to claim equal pay for equal work from the Authority. Moreover, the direct employer of the petitioners being contractor, the petitioners may not seek any relief against the Authority.
In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the writ petition.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Anay
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contract labourers employed by contractors at J.P. Narayan Airport are entitled to claim equal pay for equal work from the Airport Authority of India.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioners are employees of contractors and not direct employees of the respondent State authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1988 (3) Supreme Court Cases 354 (Jaipal –Vs.- State of Haryana)Distinguished¶29
2010 (7) Supreme Court Cases 739 (U.P. Land Development Corporation –Vs.- Md. Khurshid Ahmad)Distinguished¶29
(2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 449 (Delhi International Airport Private Limited –Vs.- Union of India and Others)Distinguished¶29
1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 611 (Parimal Chandra Raha And Others –Vs.- Life Insurance Corporation of India And Others)Distinguished¶29
(1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 630 (Bhel Workers Assn. –Vs.- Union of India)Distinguished¶29
Mahesh Kumar & Ors.
The Union of India
Airport Authority of India
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
