Petitioner: AIR INDIA STATUTORY COMPANY. Vs . Surveys takers: UNITED WORK UNION , ORS.
The appeals simply by special keep arise in the judgment in the Division Along with of the Bombay High Courtroom dated April 28, 1992 made in Appeal No . 146 of 1990 and batch. The facts in appeal developing out of S. M. P. 7417/92, are sufficient to decide the questions of law which have arisen during these appeals. The appellant initially was a statutory authority beneath International Airport Authority of India Act. 971 (for brief, , IAAI Act’) and its repeal by the International airports Authority of India Work, 1994 was amalgamated with National Airport terminal Authority (for short, the , NAA’) under single nomenclature, namely, IAAI. The IAAI has become reconstituted as a company below Companies Action, 1956. The appellants involved, as contract labour the respondent union’s members, intended for sweeping, cleaning dusting and watching with the building owned and occupied by the appellant.
The Agreement Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for Short, the , Act’) manages registration in the establishment of principal employer, the builder engaging and supplying the contract labour in every organization in which 20 or more workmen are employed upon any day in the preceding a year as agreement labour. The appellant got obtained about September 20, 1971 a certificate of registration coming from Regional Time Commissioner (Central) under the Act.
The Central Government, doing exercises the power underneath Section twelve of the Action, on the basis of advice and in consultation with the Central Advisory Table constituted under Section 10(1) of the Act, issued a notification in December 9, 1976 barring “employment of contract work on and by December on the lookout for, 1976 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishment in respect of that this appropriate federal government under the said act is a Central Government”.
However , the said prohibition would not affect “outside washing and other protection operations of multi-storeyed building where such cleaning or maintenance can not be carried out other than with specialised experience. ” It would appear that Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bombay by notice dated January 20, 72 informed the appellant the State Government is the appropriate Authorities under the Take action. Therefore , by proceedings out dated May 22, 1973 the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) had suspended the registration.
By Variation Act 46 of 1982, the Industrial Arguments Act, 1947 (for brief, the , ID Act’) was made applicable to the appellant and was brought on statut book indicating the appellant as one of the industrial sectors in relation to that this Central Government is the ideal Government and the appellant has become carrying in its organization “by or perhaps under it is authority” with effect from August 21, 1982. The Act was amended taking within it is ambit the Central Authorities as suitable Government by simply amendment Work 14 of 1986 with effect coming from January 28, 1986.
Since the appellant did not abolish the contract system and failed to enforce the notification in the Government of India old December 9, 1976, the respondents came to file writ petitions intended for direction for the appellant to enforce forthwith the aforesaid notification abolishing the deal labour program in the aforesaid services and to direct the appellant to soak up all the employees doing washing, sweeping, dusting, washing and watching from the building owned or busy by the appellant-establishment, with impact from the individual dates of their joining since contract work in the appellant’s establishment using consequential rights/benefits, monetary or otherwise, The writ petition was allowed by leaned single judge on November sixteen, 1989 leading that all contract workers be regularised because employees with the appellant in the date of filing of the writ request. The issue whether the activity is of perennial nature came to be regarded as for several courts and it was placed that because it is a statutory liability, which means nature of is perennial. As regards the status of workmen of contractor, it truly is held the workmen in the contractor do not automatically turn into direct personnel of the main employer even where the registration/licence is terminated or the contract is eliminated.
