The Joint General Secretary/Workmen and Others vs Airport Authority of India and Others

R. Kantha Rao, J.—These miscellaneous petitions are filed by the workmen to direct the Airport Authority of India represented by its Director, Begumpet, Hyderabad (for short ''Airport Authority'') to pay them the wages last drawn including all allowances as mandated by Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'') for their sustenance during the pendency of the writ petitions.

It is submitted by the petitioners-workmen that they were working under the control of the Airport Authority of India represented by its Director, Begumpet, Hyderabad and their services were terminated by the Airport Authority without following the mandatory conditions laid down in Section 25-F and 25N of the Act.

Questioning the order of termination, the workmen approached the conciliation officer through their Union and the conciliation officer in turn referred the dispute to the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ''the Industrial Tribunal''). The dispute was numbered as I.D. No. 93 of 2003 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal upon considering the factual and legal position raised before it passed an Award, dated 13.09.2013 directing the Airport Authority to reinstate the workmen into service with full back wages, continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Award, the workmen reported for duty and requested the Airport Authority to admit them to duties. The Airport Authority did not admit them to duties and thereafter, the workmen filed writ petitions before this Court which are now pending.

It is further submitted by the workmen that ever since the date of their termination of services, they could not secure any employment in spite of their best efforts and remained unemployed. Therefore, they filed these miscellaneous petitions under Section 17-B of the Act seeking a direction to the Airport Authority to pay them the last drawn wages including the allowances.

The Airport Authority filed counter-affidavit opposing the claim made by the workmen mainly contending that there is no jural relationship of the employer and the employee between the Airport Authority and the workmen as the workmen never worked under the Airport Authority and also taking the plea that the Begumpet Airport was closed its operations with effect from 23.03.2008 and in view of the changed policy, the Union of India privatized the airports which resulted in establishing Greenfield Airport i.e. Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Shamshabad. That there are no operations in Begumpet Airport and as such, the application of provisions of Section 17-B of the Act does not arise.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the workmen and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Common Award was passed by the Central Government Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad on 13.09.2013 adverting to the contentions raised by the Airport Authority. The same contentions which have been urged in the present applications have also been urged before the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The learned Tribunal upon examining the evidence in detail, arrived at the conclusion that there is jural relationship of employer and the employee between the parties and repelled the contention that the workmen worked under the Airport Authority only on account of the interim orders passed in W.A. Nos. 865,866 and 1011 of 2000. The leaned Tribunal adverting to the contentions raised on either side and examining the evidence available on record specifically held that the workmen earlier who were working under a contractor engaged by the Airport Authority worked directly under their supervision from 01.05.2001 till 18.05.2002 and that their continuance in service subsequent to 01.05.2001 was not on account of any court direction.

The crucial question, however, requires determination in the present miscellaneous petitions is whether the employer can be permitted to raise the questions relating to the merits of the case and improper appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal which passed the award of reinstating the workmen, in an application filed under Section 17-B of the Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the Airport Authority initially insisted upon this Court to take up the main writ petitions and the miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 17-B of the Act together and dispose both of them simultaneously.

In this context, it would be necessary to refer to the following judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Workmen Represented by Hindustan V.O. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and Others, . In the said case, before the Supreme Court also an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta whereunder the Division Bench took the view that the main writ petitions and the applications under Section 17-B of the Act should be disposed of together was questioned. The Supreme Court setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench held that an application under Section 17-B of the Act should be disposed of before the principal petition and it should be disposed of most expeditiously with great promptitude. In view of the settled legal position which is enunciated in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court took up the hearing of the applications filed under Section 17B of the Act only and decided to dispose of them before taking up hearing of the principal writ petitions.

Another judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court which requires reference for the purpose of determining the issue in the present miscellaneous petitions is in Workmen Represented by Hindustan V.O. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and Others, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

"It may be stated that Section 17-B, by conferring a right on the workman to be paid the amount of full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings involving challenge to the award of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal in the High Court or the Supreme Court which amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside, does not in any way preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court to pass an order directing payment of a higher mount to the workman if such higher amount is considered necessary in the interest of justice. Such direction would be dehors the provisions contained in Section 17-B and while giving the direction, the court may also give directions regarding refund or recovery of the excess amount in the event of the award being set aside. But we are unable to agree with the view of the Bombay High Court in Elpro International Ltd. that in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution, an order can be passed denying the workman the benefit granted under Section 17-B. The conferment of such a right under Section 17-B cannot be regarded as a restriction on the powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution."

In view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to pass any order depriving the workmen of the benefit granted under Section 17-B of the Act. Yet, in another judgment in Ch. Saraiah Vs. Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department and Another, the Apex Court held as follows:

"Having examined the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, we are of the considered view that the court has no jurisdiction to order non-compliance with the same when the condition precedent for passing an order in terms of Section 17-B of the Act is satisfied, and this being the legislative mandate the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the direction of the learned single Judge."

Learned counsel appearing for the Airport Authority relied on Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Shri S.C. Pandey, , Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd., and some other judgments.

I have gone through the judgments which relate to the merit of the contentions urged by the employer. I am of the considered view that those judgments need not be referred to as the learned Industrial Tribunal passed the Award on merits holding that the termination of the workmen is illegal and directed for their reinstatement and thereafter, the Airport Authority challenged the said Award by filing the present writ petitions. In an application under Section 17-B of the Act, this Court is not supposed to go into the merits of the case of the respective parties in the main writ petition. Since the object of Section 17-B is to provide sustenance to the workmen and the amount which was paid to the workmen under the provisions is not refundable or recoverable from the workmen even if the award is set aside by the High Court, this Court is not supposed to examine the merits in the main case. Therefore, the issues which were determined by the Industrial Tribunal viz. that there is jural relationship of employer and employee between the parties, the termination of the workmen is illegal and they are liable to be reinstated cannot be re-examined while determining the question as to whether the workmen/petitioners are entitled for wages as provided under Section 17-B of the Act. The scope of the enquiry is very limited and restricted in an application under Section 17-B of the Act and it is only to find out as to whether the requirement under Section 17-B of the Act is satisfied or not. Holding that the termination of the workmen is illegal, the Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workmen against which the Airport Authority filed the writ petitions. The workmen filed the affidavits stating that in spite of their best efforts they could not secure any employment and after termination they were remained unemployed. Till the main writ petitions are adjudicated, the Airport Authority is obliged to pay the wages mandated under Section 17-B of the Act to the workmen. The legality or correctness of the Award cannot be examined in an application under Section 17-B of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the relief prayed for in these miscellaneous petitions.

Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are allowed. The Airport Authority is directed to pay the last wages drawn to each of the workman from the date of filing of their affidavit till the disposal of the main writ petitions, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.