S. Nagamuthu, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a trade union. The respondent - International Airport Authority of India [in short, "IAAI"] was established under the International Airport Authority Act, 1971. It established a Cargo Complex at Chennai in the year 1978 under an Agreement dated 30.01.1978 and it granted a licence to a private company known as "M/s. Airfreight Private Limited" [in short, "APL"] to be its ground handling agent in respect of export, import and transshipment cargo consignments. The said company had to engage the services of required number of workers for handling the cargo and be responsible for payment of wages to the workers. IAAI had no privity of contract, obligation or responsibility towards the workers employed by APL. The contract was terminated by IAAI w.e.f. 01.11.1995 and thus, APL ceased to be a ground handling agent of IAAI at Madras Airport. As a result, the workers who were loaders and packers employed by APL were likely to lose their job. Therefore, they made a request to IAAI to provide them employment.
(2.) AT that stage, Airfreight Workers Union filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the IAAI to employ all those who had been employed by APL in connection with the ground handling work at Madras Air Cargo Complex and not to recruit any one from outside. During the pendency of the same, IAAI came forward with a scheme to mitigate the hardship of the contract workers which reads as follows: - The authority (IAAI) will consider mitigating the hardship of the ex - loaders and packers of M/s Air Freight claimed to be caused on account of its take over of cargo handling function by accommodating them as far as possible except by way of regular absorption in the services of IAAI till such time the authority has made its own regular arrangements, on contract basis through a Co -operative Society formed on specified terms and conditions and period as per the policy of IAAI framed from time to time. In view of the said scheme, which was agreeable to the union also, the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a co -operative society was formed in terms of the above scheme known as Airport Industrial Co -operative Service Society Limited [in short, "the society"] on 28.11.1985. Pending finalisation of a contract between the society and the IAAI, since IAAI started engaging some of the workers of APL as casual labour on day -to -day basis, yet another writ petition was filed. During the pendency of the same, an agreement was reached between the society and the IAAI [The details of the agreement are not necessary for this case and therefore, they are omitted]. As per one of the clauses of the said agreement dated 01.07.1986, the society agreed to provide 70 loaders -cum -packers at the Madras Air Cargo Complex on a consolidated monthly payment of Rs. 45,870/ -.
(3.) THEREAFTER , there were several rounds of litigations about which no elaboration is required as the same would be unnecessary to decide the issues involved in the present writ petition. It is suffice to say that eventually the Central Government referred an Industrial Dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Madras in I.D. No. 65 of 1991, wherein the erstwhile loaders and packers employed by Airfreight Workers' Union and subsequently by the society formed by such workers raised a dispute seeking absorption as permanent workers of IAAI. The Tribunal, by award dated 23.12.1994, recorded the following findings: - (a) The memo filed by IAAI in W.P. No. 11683 of 1985 (which was agreed to by the workers union), resulting in dismissal of W.P. No. 11683/1985 filed by the workers' union, amounted to a settlement which was not valid, as IAAI was in a dominant position to dictate terms and compel the workers union to enter into the settlement to circumvent the provisions of law and deprive the legitimate right of the workmen to permanent status. (b) The said memo of IAAI requiring the workers to form a society was a ploy adopted by IAAI to defeat the legitimate claim of the workers to permanent status to which they were entitled as they had worked for 5 to 14 years previously under Airfreight and thereafter under the IAAI who was the principal employer and after the termination of the handling agency of Airfreight, their workers became the direct employees of IAAI. (c) After the termination of the handling agency in favour of Airfreight, its employees were directly engaged by IAAI and received salary from IAAI. Thus they became the direct employees of IAAI from November 1985. Once the workers became its employees, IAAI could not change their status from direct workers to indirect workers. (d) Even when the workmen were working as contract labour through the society, IAAI was exercising direct supervision and control over them, directly paying wages to them and taking disciplinary action against them and all these showed that they were considered and dealt with as direct employees of IAAI and the agreement between IAAI and the society was sham and nominal. (e) Any attempt by IAAI to appoint the workmen as contract labour is illegal and would amount to an unfair labour practice.;