Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 603 (DEL)

AIRPORT EMPLOYIS UNION (REGD. ) v. ANIL BAIJAL

2001-11-06

M.A.KHAN

body2001
Mahmood Ali Khan ( 1 ) THE petitioner Airport Employees Union has filed this petition for initiating proceedings under Contempt of courts Act against the respondents. Respondent,no. 2 is the contractor/employer whereas respondent no. 1 Indian Airlines was using the services of the contract labourers. employed by respondent no. 2 in its works. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 3330/99 against the respondent for a direction to the respondent to regularise the, services of all the workmen of respondent no. 1 Indian Airlines who had been working as loaders and whose names were shown in Annexure-P1 of the writ petition with effect from the date of their initial appointment with consequential benefits. An application was also filed for direction to the respondent to maintain status quo and to continue the workmen in service during the pendency of, the writ petition. On 15/7/1999 a during the pendency of the writ petition. On 15/7/1999 a single Bench of this court issued notice on interim direction single Bench of this court issued notice on interim direction application and directed the parties to maintain status quo as of the date of the order. This stay order was extended subsequently. ( 2 ) NOW the complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents were given direction to maintain status quo as regards the working of the persons whose names figured in annexure-P1 of the writ petition but respondent no. 2 contractor had violated this order by refusing to give work to some of those workers whose names are given in Annexure-P. A registered notice dated 12/10/1999 was sent to both the respondents inviting their attention to the order of the court dated 15/7/1999 and asking them to implement the order in its true spirit but to no effect. It was alleged specifically that one Vinod Malik and Subhash have not been given work w. e. f. 15/9/1999 and 1/6/1999. respectively. On the other hand respondent no. 2 had engaged some new workers and gave them work while the workers whose name were given in annexure-P1 had been refused work and they were not allowed to work for more than 15 days in a month. The names of some new labourers engaged by respondent no. 2 have, also been mentioned. respectively. On the other hand respondent no. 2 had engaged some new workers and gave them work while the workers whose name were given in annexure-P1 had been refused work and they were not allowed to work for more than 15 days in a month. The names of some new labourers engaged by respondent no. 2 have, also been mentioned. It was stated that since new workers have been engaged, the respondent cannot take the plea that they did not have work to provide to the workers whose names were given in Annexure-P1. Furthermore in the writ petition the court had directed the petitioners to surrender their PICs while going off duty and had directed the contractor to give them back to the workers when they resume duty next day. The workers were complying with this order but in the case of manjeet, Dharmender and Ranbir, the Contractor had not returned PICs to them w. e. f. 4/2/2000 and thereby refused duties to them. The respondents have, thus, deliberately violated the order of this court. It was prayed that they should be directed to provide work to Sunil Kumar, Srinivas, subhash and Vinod Malik and the PICs of Manjeet, Dharmender and Ranbir should be directed to be returned to them. It was further prayed that the respondent should be punished for committing contempt of this Court. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT no. 2, the Contractor which was engaging the labourers for working in the works of respondent no. 1 submitted its reply in which, inter alia, it was stated that vinod Malik was caught red handed stealing some baggage of a passenger by the security division of the respondent Indian airlines and because of that he was not iworking since 1/6/1999 and on the date of the passing of the order of status quo he was not entitled to be provided work and there is no disobedience of the order of the court. On the complaint of the Indian Airlines that adequate number of contract labourers were not attending work, due notices were. sent. to some of the workers but they did not report back, as a result respondent no. 2 had to engage a few new hands for being provided to respondent no. 1 to meet its requirement. It was stated that this has not resulted in the curtailment of the working days of the petitioners. sent. to some of the workers but they did not report back, as a result respondent no. 2 had to engage a few new hands for being provided to respondent no. 1 to meet its requirement. It was stated that this has not resulted in the curtailment of the working days of the petitioners. The respondent alleged that the full particulars of the new labourers allegedly engaged by respondent no. 2 have not been mentioned in the petition, therefore, they could not be verified. As regards Manjeet, Dharmender and Ranbir their personal identification cards (PICs) were seized by Bureau of Civil aviation and the security of the Airport Author ity of India on 3/2/2000 when they were found roaming at the airport although they were not on duty. As a consequence these persons could not be assigned duty as they were found guilty of the breach of rules and regulations and the security in the view of the Airport Authority of India and Bureau of civil Aviation security. There is no disobedience of the order of the court by the respondent . ( 4 ) SENIOR Manager of respondent no. 1 filed an affidavit in reply to the petition. It was stated that respondent no. 1 had highest regard for the courts and would not commit any violation of the court s order. It was stated that the loading and unloading work was being done by the workers engaged by respondent no. 2 Contractor. Respondent no. 1 had no control and supervision over them. As regards sunil Kumar, Srinivas and Subhash, it was stated that they were not. covered by the interim order of the court dated 15/7/1999 as they were not working with the respondent at that time. with regard to Vinod Malik, it was alleged that he was involved in a case of theft of baggage of a registered passenger and Bureau of Civil Aviation security of the airport had sent a letter about It to respondent no. 3. For this reason respondent no. 2 lost confidence in that worker. Some of the workers were not surrendering photo identify cards while going off duty and were misusing it. Manjeet, dharmander and Ranbir were found loitering at Terminal-II which is a high security sensitive area,. without any explanation when they were not on duty there. 3. For this reason respondent no. 2 lost confidence in that worker. Some of the workers were not surrendering photo identify cards while going off duty and were misusing it. Manjeet, dharmander and Ranbir were found loitering at Terminal-II which is a high security sensitive area,. without any explanation when they were not on duty there. The airport security Officer of the Bureau of Civil Aviation security, therefore, seized their PICs. Copy of the letter issued by bureau of Civil Aviation security to respondent no. 2 has been submitted. Sunil Kumar. Srinivas and Subhaah were not covered by the status quo order as they were not working with respondent no. 2 on that day. ( 5 ) IN the joinder to the reply of respondent no-2 the petitioners contended that allegations against Vinod malik were not correct as no FIR was lodged against him. But as regards Subhash it was conceded that the status quo order was not applicable to him. It was denied that Manjeet, dharmender andranbir were found in the security area of the airport when they were not on duty. It was stated that when they entered the airport with their identity cards, their identify cards were snatched away by the airport. officials and they have not been returned back and they have also not been charge-sheeted and departmental inquiry has not been conducted by respondent no. 2, but they have been refused work. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties at length and going through the documents placed by the parties on record, I do not find it to be a fit case for initiating proceedings under contempt of Courts Act in this case. The status quo order of this court was not applicable to worker Subhash according to the admissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It has also not been denied by the petitioner that another worker Vinod malik was allegedly involved in a theft case. The argument of counsel for petitioner is that no criminal case has been registered against him and no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by respondent no. 2 against him, so, the allegations against Vinod Malik are only a ruse for not providing work to him. The argument of counsel for petitioner is not tenable. Vinod Malik was apprehended by security division of the Indian Airlines for allegedly stealing goods from the baggage of a registered passenger. 2 against him, so, the allegations against Vinod Malik are only a ruse for not providing work to him. The argument of counsel for petitioner is not tenable. Vinod Malik was apprehended by security division of the Indian Airlines for allegedly stealing goods from the baggage of a registered passenger. The security staff had informed respondents no. 2 about this incident. Respondent no. 2 had no option to send him to work with respondent no. 1 any more. Therefore respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be on fault for not assigning duty to him. Respondent no. 1 can also not he forced to accept the workers whose integrity became questionable. It cannot be stated that the respondents had committed any willful and deliberate breach of this Court s status quo order in respect of this worker. ( 7 ) AS regards the PICs of Manjeet, Dharmender and ranbir it is the case of the two respondents that their PICs were taken away by the officers of the Bureau of Civil aviation Security on 3/2/2000 as they were found loitering in the security area of the airport when they were not on duty. A complaint about it had been made by the Bureau of Civil aviation Security of Airport Authority of India to respondent no. 2. The Bureau of Civil Aviation is the third party and it has no personal grudge against these persons. Respondents could not dare to give work t,o these persons whose personal identification certificates were taken away by the Bureau of civil Aviation Security. They could not have entered the security area to work for respondent no. 1 without the PICs. The respondent, therefore, cannot be said to have disobeyed the court s order by not providing work to them. ( 8 ) ANOTHER contention of counsel for petitioners is that the workers of the petitioners have not been provided work for 26 days in a month and that respondent no. 2 had engaged new workers. Respondent no. 2 has pointed out that some of the workers were not reporting for duty as a result respondent no. 1 was facing difficulty on account of shortage of labourers and respondent no. 2 sent letters to the workers to report regularly but to no effect, so some new persons were engaged so that the adequate number of workers are provided to respondent no. 1 for its work. 1 was facing difficulty on account of shortage of labourers and respondent no. 2 sent letters to the workers to report regularly but to no effect, so some new persons were engaged so that the adequate number of workers are provided to respondent no. 1 for its work. It was stated that it has not reduced the number of working days of petitioners. The petitioners in reply filed slips of only 11 persons which showed that they were given less than 26 days work. There may be hundreds of reasons for a worker not reporting for the duty or not wor king on a particular date. Therefore the number of days which have been mentioned in the slip alone will not lead to an inference that respondent no. 2 deliberately or intentionally had given them work on less number of days and has committed breach of the order of this court. The number of wor king days also vary from person to person even in the case of these 11 workers. It ranges from 9 to 19 days. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, it is not a fit case for initiating proceedings for Contempt of Court against respondents. The petition has no merit. It is dismissed.