IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30241 of 2009(A)
1. KERALA SOCIALIST TRADE UNION GUILD,
... Petitioner
2. XAVIER GEORGE, RESIDING AT T.C.44/733,
Vs
1. M/S.INDIAN AIRLINES LTD., AIRLINES HOUSE
... Respondent
2. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, M/S.INDIAN AIRLINES
3. AIRPORT MANAGER, M/S.INDIAN AIRLINES
4. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/12/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.30241 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The 1st petitioner is a registered trade union and they
represent certain workers enrolled as casual labourers in
M/s.Indian Airlines in Trivandrum Airport and the 2nd petitioner is
one of the casual workers under them. According to the
1st petitioner, there are 116 workers including the 2nd petitioner
who are represented by them.
2. The main complaint raised in the writ petition is that
without implementing the scheme for regularization as it is done
in other major cities, the Management is trying to induct other
contract workers. Exhibit P2 is the official note of the 79th
meeting of the Indian Airlines Limited. The case of the
petitioners further is that contract labourers are being gradually
inducted in the place of the casual workers. It is in these
circumstances, the petitioners have moved the 4th respondent
by filing Exhibit P4. Exhibit P5 is an order passed in
W.P.(C) No.30241/2009 2
W.P.(C) No.3138/2007 with regard to identically placed workers
in Calicut Airport.
3. As directed by this Court, the respondents 1 to 3 have
filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out
that the petitioners have rushed to this Court immediately after
filing Exhibit P4 and the writ petition is premature. They are
relying upon Exhibit R1(a) judgment of this Court in
W.P.(C)No.17787/2004 as well as the judgment in
O.P.No.25131/1999 (Exhibit R1(b)). It is pointed out that
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, upon considering
the suggestions received, a Scheme was framed in respect of
casual daily rated employees at Trivandrum, Calicut and Cochin
Airports as Exhibit R1(c). Therefore, the case of the respondents
1 to 3 is that since the scheme has already been framed, the
casual daily rated employees are estopped from raising the same
issue again in this writ petition. 4th respondent is the Conciliation
Officer. It is upto the 4th respondent to conciliate the dispute and
take appropriate follow up action in the matter.
Therefore, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to
W.P.(C) No.30241/2009 3
initiate steps for conciliation as enjoyed by law within two weeks
of the date of production of a copy of this judgment and finalise
the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that pending such action, the respondents 1
to 3 may be directed not to bring any outside workers on contract
basis. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it is mentioned
that casual daily rated employees will be offered work by rotation
subject to availability of work. The same is recorded.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp
