MANAGEMENT OF BLUE DART AVIATION LIMITED REP BY ITS CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the Management of Blue Dart Aviation Limited and it undertakes transportation of Cargo by Aviation and it has an establishment in Chennai in their premises of Old Chennai Airport where Cargo is packed, loaded and unloaded for onward transmission and also receive the Cargo and arrange for delivery. It has got an office opposite to the Old Chennai Airport called Indian Airlines Stadium.

(2.) According to the averments made in the affidavit, the petitioner has registered itself as Principal Employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'CLRA Act'). According to them, the third respondent herein is one of the contractors, who also have licence to employ contract labourers. The third respondent have covered their workmen under the Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance Acts and are having separate workmen. The petitioner further stated in the affidavit that they had employed the workmen supplied by the third respondent and in each of the writ petitions, the fourth respondent is one such workman supplied by the third respondent. The writ petitioner further stated that on 06.12.20004, they received a letter from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai (Conciliation Officer) asking them to attend the conciliation meeting before the Conciliation Officer and the said notice was issued under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'I.D. Act'). It was stated that the conciliation was with reference to the issue relating to the reinstatement of the fourth respondent workmen in all these petitions. It is also challenged by the writ petitioner that apart from the writ petitioner, the notice was also given to the third respondent Contractor in the said proceedings.

(3.) The writ petitioner appeared before the Conciliation Officer and also submitted a reply dated 13.12.2004 stating that they are Principal Employer under the CLRA Act and the third respondent was one such contractor and they believed that the fourth respondent in all the writ petitions were workmen employed by the third respondent and hence, the Conciliation Officer cannot maintain a dispute against the writ petitioner. The third respondent also submitted a representation dated 14.12.2004 stating that they are labour supply contractor to the writ petitioner since 1998 and since the workmen employed by them misbehaved, there was some problem with them. They also informed those workmen to report for work but they did not report for work and that they have not terminated their services.