Vimalraj M. and Others vs Management of Air India Ltd. and Others

P. Sathasivam, J.—Since the issue raised is one and the same in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common

order.

Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 15915, 15916, 16405, 16786, 17318, 18092 of 1999, 3102, 3786, 4271, 5934 and 7977 of 2000 have

approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents viz., Management of Air India Ltd., not to indulge in the practice of

employing persons such as the petitioners only for 90 days and ousting them thereafter and in particular direct the respondents 1 to 3 to frame a

scheme for regular absorption of the workmen like the petitioners and consequently direct the fourth respondent - District Employment Officer,

Kancheepuram to maintain the seniority of the petitioners in the Employment Exchange, so as to preserve their seniority in the event of such of the

petitioners who do not get regularisation on the framing of the Scheme.

Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 17267, 17387, 19769 of 1999, 101, 165, 174, 175, 1752, 2102, 2217, 2711, 3591, 3758, 5697 and 5924

of 2000 have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to frame a scheme for regularisation of the daily rated

employees engaged in the Catering Department, Engineering Department and ground Support Department of Air India Ltd., at the International

Airport at Madras prior to this date and pending framing of the scheme utilise the labour engaged in the past including the petitioners herein.

Petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 173 to 175, 2814 and 4624 of 2000 have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents/management to reinstate the petitioners with other benefits in accordance with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. Nos.

22 and 39 of 1991, dated May 15, 1997.

The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:

The Air India operates International flights and several flights originate or transit through Madras Airport. It also handles the luggage and baggage

and offers, other facilities for other international carriers such as British Airways, Singapore Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Lufthansa, etc. Number of

workers are employed by Air India for the purpose of handling the luggage checked in by the passenger and for loading them into containers and

also for certain other operations like loading and unloading of cargo, etc. For the said purpose Air India was engaging workmen on daily rated

basis and engaging them for a period of 90 days and terminating them from service thereafter. If the vacancies so caused, once again Air India calls

for applications from the Employment Exchange and again engages them for 90 days and repeat the same process. The work requirement of Air

India is one of permanent and perennial nature, Air India engages workmen for short durations to deny them the benefit of permanency and other

consequential benefits. A number of workmen who were so engaged in the year 1985 raised an industrial dispute against their non-employment

and the Industrial Tribunal upheld the contentions of the workmen and directed that a scheme be framed for permanent absorption of these

workers. As against, the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the management filed Writ Petition No. 18071 of 1997 and entered into a settlement

with the union that raised the said dispute that it will absorb the workmen covered by the settlement and thereafter did not forward any scheme for

permanent absorption of the workmen. After the petitioners were selected from the list sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram,

they were given orders of appointment, wherein they have specifically said that the employment would not continue beyond 90 days. The names of

the petitioners who were selected are deleted from their rolls by the Employment Exchange. When the petitioners are ousted from service, once

again they have to reapply and register themselves with the Employment Exchange and lose their seniority in the Exchange for the employment only

for a period of 90 days. The method being followed by the Air India is contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the

fact that the management of the Air India is required to frame a scheme for regularisation and for absorption of such workmen, it has failed to do

so and sidestepped the issue by entering into a Section 18(1) settlement with that union itself shows that respondents 1 to 3 would not act fairly in

the matter of employment of the workers such as the petitioners unless this Court issues certain directions invoking the jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

On behalf of Air India, the Senior Manager, HRD Southern India, Madras, has filed a common counter affidavit in some of the writ petitions.

The stand taken by the Air India is briefly stated hereunder:

Air India is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, coming under the administrative control of Ministry of Civil

Aviation, Government of India. The first respondent engages casuals on a day-to-day basis depending upon the flight handling requirements for

loading and unloading of passenger baggage, cargo, engineering, Ground Services Department (GSD), medical and also for cabin cleaning work

for the flights of Air India and other foreign carriers with whom Air India enters into a bilateral contract. In order to meet the flight handling

requirements, it was decided to recruit casuals through Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram. As the Chennai Airport comes under the

jurisdiction of Kancheepuram District, the vacancy notifications were forwarded to that Exchange. In the said notification, it was specifically

mentioned that the vacancies are for a specific period. Casuals were engaged for handling/palletising luggage/cargo and cabin cleaning and in other

departments based on the requirements. The company has its own permanent employees to carry out the flight handling requirements. Presently,

the ban on recruitment imposed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation is in operation and the Ministry has also directed Air India to reduce 10 per cent

of its total strength as per its office memorandum, dated December 29, 1995. In all, Air India has about 183 permanent cargo assistants in the Air

port Establishment, Chennai, for carrying out the loading/unloading work. The casuals are engaged to substitute the permanent

loaders/cleaners/helpers who remain absent from work. Arrival and departure of flights fluctuate and do not take place throughout the day. The

work in question was casual work and not work of a perennial nature in the sense that it could not be determined in advance as to number of

persons who would be required on a regular basis. This was because of the very nature of the work itself which involved arrival and departure of

flights at Madras International Airport which was not something happening continuously through&ut the day. Keeping in mind the requirements of

casuals, the second respondent has forwarded the notification to the Kancheepuram Employment Exchange. Only those who qualified in the

personal interview were engaged on casual basis. Since the offer is only for specific period and casual in nature and even during the said period the

candidates who have expressed their inability to take up the assignment. The respondents have not committed breach of any statutory obligations,

much less the fifth schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of arrival of more foreign airlines into Madras, it became extremely acute and in

order to survive and compete with, the foreign airlines, it became necessary for the company to take steps to organise its business on sound

commercial lines. The permanent employees of the company are represented by a recognised union that has been in existence from the year 1985.

This union called Air India Employees'' Guild has signed ever so many settlements with the management under the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act and on several occasions co-operated with the management in order to make the working of the company viable. Arising out of

bilateral discussions, the employees'' union took realistic approach and agreed to the management''s request that several changes have to be made

with regard to administrative functions of the company. Based on the discussion with the union and upon individual request as well, with effect from

October 13, 1999, the permanent employees of company who were carrying out aircraft cleaning have been redeployed to do loading and

unloading work along with other permanent employees already doing this type of loading and unloading work.

It is further stated that, in order to operate economically and to provide satisfactory services it was decided with effect from October 13, 1999

that aircraft dressing (which involved cleaning of the aircraft and allied activities) would be entrusted to a contractor. After negotiations, aircraft

dressing work for a period of three years ending December 31, 1999 was entrusted to Saj Caterers who have taken charge from October 13,

1999. The company''s permanent employees doing aircraft cleaning were redeployed to do loading/unloading work. The management after

considering business requirements and exigencies, it is considering that it would be wise and prudent to combine the activities of catering work

referred to together with aircraft cleaning, particularly since aircraft cleaning as such involved just a span of about 30 minutes during the turnaround

time when the aircraft is on ground. Since the talks with the union about the method and pattern of engagement of casuals could not be sorted out

bilaterally, the union in fact, has taken the matter in the form of an industrial dispute before the Commissioner of Labour in accordance with the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the said proceedings are pending before the authorities constituted under the Act. The management

has been working on the idea of reducing the manpower in view of the critical financial status and also facing cumulative losses over the years, by

introducing shorter working week scheme, two years leave on loss of pay and also thinking of introducing voluntary retirement schemes, it is also in

the schedule of the management, that excess manpower from one area to the other area should be channelised thereby rationalising the manpower

in the network. It is further stated that the union that raised the dispute, viz., I.D. No. 39 of 1991 entered into a settlement in regard to the issue

and that has been finally concluded and the settlement is in operation to the satisfaction of all concerned. It becomes necessary to engage casual

labour on account of nature of the work that involves international airlines flights that land at Madras airport and which require service. It is only on

account of the nature of work that is involved that the company has necessarily to resort to engagement of casual labour. The work itself depends

upon the arrival and departure of international airlines. Some of the writ petitioners who have raised industrial dispute about their non-employment

and the same is pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in Chennai. The petitioners have suppressed lot of facts and do not

deserve discretionary orders at the hands of this Court. The Air India Employees'' Guild, which is also a party in some of the writ petitions a

registered and recognised trade union has already raised an industrial dispute in the question of modes, under which the management would be

engaging the casual employees and the conciliation proceedings have already commenced. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the

writ petitions.

With reference to the averments made by the management in certain writ petitions, the petitioners have filed rejoinder disputing the claim made

by the management and reiterating their earlier stand.

Air India has also filed additional affidavit wherein it is stated that as per the notification, dated January 17, 2000 issued by the Airport Authority

of India, the Airport Authority of India would with the previous approval of the Central Government make regulations relating to engagement of

ground handling agency. It is stated that the effect of the notification is that an operator or carrier may either carry out ground handling services at

an airport by itself or engage the services of the Airport Authority of India, the two national carriers Air India and Indian Airlines or any other

handling agency licensed by the Airport Authority of India. By pointing out the above said notification, it is stated that there is no guarantee that the

foreign airlines that are serviced by Air India would continue to be serviced by Air India.

The Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Kancheepuram, impleaded as fourth respondent in some Of the writ petitions has filed a

limited counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have asserted that the names of those selected for appointment on daily wage basis

will be deleted from the Live Registers of the Employment Exchange. According to him the said apprehension is not correct. It is stated that for

placement in daily rated vacancies, the registration index cards of the registrants will not be removed from the Live Registers for a period of two

years. It is further stated that these candidates can get their original seniority if they produce the ousting order at the Employment Exchange within a

period of 18 months. Further, it is stated that even in cases of placement in temporary/permanent vacancies on regular time scale of pay, the index

cards of the registrants will be restored back to its original seniority provided the candidates report back to the Employment Exchange within 18

months from the date of their ousting from service.

In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the respondents.

Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:

(1) In view of common award passed in I. D. Nos. 22 and 39 of 1991 dated May 15, 1997, the management of Air India is bound to frame a

scheme to fit in those workmen in the list of regularised workmen.

(2) For settlement entered into between the parties after an award, in order to substitute the award by the settlement there should be a finding by

the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court that the settlement entered into pursuant to the award is fair and valid and binding on all the workmen involved

in the industrial dispute. He further contended that, unless the office bearers of the union who signed the settlement were authorised by the

executive committee of the union, no agreement between any office bearer of the union and the management can be called as settlement in terms of

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3) Engagement of workers on rotation basis with a view to avoid engaging them continuously is an unfair labour practice.

(4) Recruitment on the basis of ''descent'' is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(5) Though engagement of contract labour for a particular type of work has not been abolished u/s 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970, the engagement of contract labour for such work is not permissible when the work is of a permanent and perennial nature.

On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for Air India would contend that:

(1) Most of the petitioners are out of employment and the said issue is pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for conciliation, the

same cannot be agitated before this Court.

(2) Since most of the petitioners are engaged and dispensed with long ago and not in service as on date, there is no question of framing of a

''scheme''.

(3) The company has its own permanent employees to carry out flight handling requirements and only on account of business exigencies it becomes

necessary for the company to engage casuals for loading and unloading operations.

(4) Since the union at whose instance an award was passed in I.D. No. 39 of 1991 entered into a settlement, dated June 7, 1999, and the same is

in operation to the satisfaction of all concerned, the settlement supersedes the award and the same is binding on other workmen.

(5) The nature of jobs engaged are purely casual in nature which depends upon the uplift of the cargo which is seasonal and fluctuate in nature.

(6) The Air India Employees'' Guild as a registered and recognised trade union has already raised an industrial dispute on the question of modes

under which the management engage the casual employees and inasmuch as the conciliation proceedings have already commenced, the question

raised herein can be sorted out before the Conciliation Officer.

Learned Government Advocate reiterated the stand taken by the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, and explained that there is no

basis for the apprehension by the petitioners.

Sri A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent - Air India Employees'' Guild in WP. No. 1595 of 1999 would

contend that inasmuch as the question of non- employment of the petitioners is pending before the Conciliation Officer, the writ petitions are not

maintainable. In the absence of any details in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, the settlement entered by their union and the management

supersedes the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the same is binding on all its workmen.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

Since the contentions raised are inter-linked, I shall consider the same in the following paragraphs. At the instance of an individual workman,

viz., Anthony Lawrence and the Regional Secretary, Air Corporation Employees Union, Air India Region, Madras, the Government of India have

referred the following two questions to the Tribunal for adjudication. In I.D. No. 22 of 1991. The issue raised was:

Whether the action of the management of Air India, Southern Region, Madras, in not regularising and terminating the services of 39 workmen (as

per list attached) is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?

In I.D. No. 39 of 1991 the issue raised was:

Whether the management of Air India in Southern Region, Madras is justified in denying continuous employment to 114 casual workmen detailed

in annexure enclosed and employing casual workmen only for 110 days in a calendar year? If not, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled

to?

By an order, dated May 15, 1997, the Industrial Tribunal, Madras has passed an award holding that the services of 39 workmen in I.D. No.

22 of 1991 and 82 workmen referred in I.D. No. 39 of 1991 should be regularised from the date of the award with continuity of service, back

wages and other benefits, Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners after taking me through the entire award and the directions

made therein would contend that the management ought to have implemented the same and framed a scheme to fit in all the workmen mentioned in

the list of regularised workmen. It is true that, by the said award, dated May 15, 1997, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award in favour of certain

workmen in I.D. Nos. 22 and 39 of 1991 with continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for Air

India would contend that questioning the said award, the management filed W.P. No. 18071 of 1997 before this Court. He also stated that, during

the pendency of the said writ petition after negotiation with the recognised trade union, viz., Air Corporation Employees'' Trade Union arrived at an

amicable Settlement in the place of award, dated May 15, 1997. The settlement was signed by the management as well as Secretary, Treasurer

and Committee Member of the Union. After arriving at the settlement, dated June 7, 1999, the same was filed before this Court in W.P. No.

18071 of 1997 and after recording the settlement, dated June 7, 1999 and after noting the submissions made by the learned counsel for

management, by order, dated June 18, 1999 this Court has dismissed W.P No. 18071 of 1997 as withdrawn. In the same order, the learned

Judge made it clear that the said order is without prejudice to the right of the individual workers, viz., respondents 3 to 20, to work out their

remedies in the manner known to law, The order of the learned single Judge, dated June 18, 1999, has been confirmed by the Division Bench in

WA. No. 1320 of 1999, dated September 7, 1999. By pointing out the action of the management arriving at an amicable settlement dated June 7,

1999, with the registered recognised union, it is stated by the management that the award of the Tribunal, dated May 15, 1997, has duly been

substituted, accordingly there is no question of implementation of the award and framing of a scheme. It is also brought to my notice that, inasmuch

as most of the petitioners had left the service even in the years 1984, 1985, 1986, and some of them in 1994, 1995 ''they cannot ask for any

scheme for regularisation at this juncture. Apart from this, it is also contended on the side of the management, viz., that in view of pendency of

conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour regarding employing casual workers for certain work for certain period, all

these questions can be agitated before the said authority.

Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners by very much relying on the decision of Supreme Court reported in Amalgamated Coffee

Estates Ltd, and Ors. v. Their Workmen and Ors. 1965 II LLJ 110 would contend that, in order to substitute the award by the settlement there

should be a finding by the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that the settlement entered into pursuant to the award is fair and valid and binding on all

the workmen involved in the industrial dispute. No doubt, in the case before the Supreme Court, after the award the parties have settled and

submitted the settlement, the Supreme Court called for a finding from the Industrial Tribunal and on the basis of the report of the Tribunal disposed

of the appeal in terms of settlement. In our case, it is brought to my notice on the side of the management that, taking note of the availability of

permanent employees to carry out loading and unloading operations and also of the fact that about 25 persons alone who actually are interested in

pursuing the matter pursuant to the award approached the management for settlement of the issue and after deliberation they arrived at a settlement

on June 7, 1999 u/s 18(1) read with Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The following clauses in the Memorandum of Settlement, dated

June 7, 1999, are relevant:

Whereas 25 persons actually interested in pursuing the matter had approached the management for a settlement of the issue and a settlement,

dated April 22, 1999, had been entered into with these 25 persons as the said 25 persons only had agitated the dispute.

And whereas the persons really interested in the matter have been given permanency and as the settlement fair and proper, the union subscribes to

the settlement and since the dispute has been raised by the union, the union feels that the award can be substituted by the settlement, dated April

22, 1999.

(o) Both the union and the management shall jointly seek for the disposal of W.P. No. 18071 of 1997 on the file of the High Court, Madras,

substituting this settlement in place of the award, dated May 15, 1997, made in I.D. No. 39 of 1991.

The said agreement was signed by the Commercial Manager as well as the Senior Manager on the side of the management, Secretary, Treasurer,

Committee Member representing ACEI A 1 Region. The settlement, dated June 7, 1999, has been referred to in the order passed in. W.P. No.

18071 of 1999, dated June 18, 1999, and subsequently the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In such circumstance it cannot be

contended that the office-bearers of the union are incompetent to arrive at a settlement, if it is beneficial to employees, more particularly in the light

of the stand of the management.

In this regard it is worthwhile to refer the decision cited by Sri Sanjay Mohan reported in Ram Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. The Chairman,

Industrial Tribunal, , wherein their Lordships have held that, the individual workman is at no stage a party to the industrial dispute independently of

the union. They further observed that the union or those workmen who have by their sponsoring turned the individual dispute into an industrial

dispute, can therefore claim to have a say in the conduct of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

In K.C.P. Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and Others, in similar circumstances, viz., substituting the award of the Tribunal by way of private

settlement, their Lordships have held, at p. 312 of LLJ:

It has to be kept in view that the industrial dispute was raised by respondent 2-union on behalf of all the 29 workmen who were dismissed

from service by the appellant-company. It was an industrial dispute as defined by Section 2(k) of the Act raised by the union on behalf of its

members. Respondents 3 to 14 were at the relevant time, members of the union and even till date they continue to be the members of the

sponsoring union. This was not a reference raised by a dismissed employee as per Section 2-A of the Act. Consequently, as per Section 36 of the

Act, it was respondent 2-union which was in charge of the proceedings and could represent all the 29 dismissed workmen on whose behalf the

dispute was raised by it. When the said union having considered the pros and cons of the situation, entered into the settlement on behalf of all the

workmen for whom it had taken cudgels unless the said settlement was found to be ex facie, unjust or unfair it could not be gone behind by these

respondents who can be said to be parties to the same through their representative union, respondent 2. In this connection, a reference is also

required to be made to Section 18(1) of the Act which lays down as under:

A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be

binding on the parties to the agreement.

It is not in dispute that the settlement arrived at by respondent 2-union with the appellant-company was not in the course of conciliation

proceedings. Therefore, it would be binding the parties to the agreement, namely, the appellant- company on the one hand and respondent 2-union

representing all the 29 dismissed employees, who were its members and on whose behalf it had raised the industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the Act on

the other.

It is also not in dispute that parties to the settlement were the appellant-company on the one hand and respondent 2-union on the other, which

acted on behalf of alt the 29 dismissed workmen for whom reference was pending in the Labour Court. It was duly signed by both these parties.

Under these circumstances, respondents 3 to 14 also would be ordinarily bound by this settlement entered into by their representative union with

the company unless it is shown that the said settlement was ex facie, unfair, unjust or mala fide...

As observed by their Lordships, it is not the case of the workmen that the settlement, dated June 7, 1999, was ex facie, unfair, unjust or mala fide.

The reading of the various clauses therein does not lead to such inference.

In Herbertsons Limited Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Others, while rejecting similar contentions, their Lordships have

concluded that:

There may be several factors that may influence parties to come to a settlement as a phased endeavour in the course of collective bargaining.

Once cordiality is established between the employer and labour in arriving at a settlement which operates well for the period that is in force, there is

always a likelihood of further advances in the shape of improved emoluments by voluntary settlement avoiding friction and unhealthy litigation. This

is the quintessence of settlement which Courts and Tribunals should endeavour to encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and

not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. The Tribunal fell into an error in invoking the principles that should govern in

adjudicating a dispute regarding dearness allowance in judging whether the settlement was just and fair.

In the light of what is stated above, particularly in the light of the information furnished by the management in their common counter-affidavit

and in view of various clauses in the settlement, dated June 7, 1999, and also of the fact that the office-bearers of the union are representing nearly

12,000 employees, in the absence of any allegation of mala fide, I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners

and I approve the action of the management.

Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the decisions reported in H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others,

, Ferozepore Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd. v. Labour Court, Bhatinda and Anr. 1986 (1) L.L.N. 204, and the Kapurthala Central Co-

operative Bank, Ltd. v. Labour Court, Jullundur and Ors. 1984 (2) L.L.N. 180, would contend that engagement of workers on rotation basis with

a view to avoid engaging them continuously is an unfair labour practice. In the light of the submission made, I have carefully perused the factual

position and the law made therein. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for management, the position of Air India cannot be compared with

the nature and quantum of work available with the Reserve Bank of India. In the counter-affidavit the management has highlighted various factors

for not employing more persons. Apart from the fact that the company has its own permanent employees to carry out various types of work, they

have entrusted the aircraft dressing to a catering contractor who would take up a composite contract of catering and aircraft dressing of Air India

flights. The particulars furnished in the form of annexure filed along with the counter-affidavit clearly show that the number of days worked and the

details regarding the month and the year they worked as well as the other information that the union has taken up the issue, viz., pattern of

engagementof casuals in the form of industrial dispute before the Commissioner of Labour in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted.

Though it is true that the respondent Government of India undertaking is expected to abolish contract labour system and regularise qualified

persons, the particulars furnished in the counter-affidavit as well as in the annexure giving details, the action of the company cannot be faulted with.

It is not disputed that the engagement of contract labour for a particular type of work has not been abolished u/s 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. There is no dispute that as observed by their Lordships in Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. Vs. United

Labour Union and others [overruled], the judicial function of the Court therefore in interpreting the Constitution and the provisions of the Act,

required to build up continuity of socio-economic empowerment of the poor to sustain equality of opportunity and status and the law should

constantly meet the needs and aspiration of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order. In this regard it is brought to my notice that taking

note of over all purpose and workload the recognised registered Union in consultation with their members arrived at a settlement with the

management on June 7, 1999 regularising 25 persons from and out of the list of members in I.D. Nos. 22 and 39 of 1991.

Coming to the contention that recruitment on the basis of descent is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Sri V. Prakash,

learned counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Yogender Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of

India others, their Lordships have observed at pp. 344, 345 of LLJ:

While it may be permissible to appoint a person who is the son of a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while rendering

service in the police department, a provision which confers a preferential right to appointment on the children or wards or other relatives of the

police officers either in service or retired merely because they happen to be the children or wards or other relatives of such police officers would

be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. Opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all the citizens equally and should not be

confined to any extent to the descendants or relatives of a person already in the service of the State or who has retired from the service......

Again, it is observed that:

We are of the opinion that the claim made by the appellants for the relaxation of the Rules in their cases only because they happen to be the

wards or children or relatives of the police officers has got to be negatived since their claim is based on ''descent'' only and others will thereby be

discriminated against as they do not happen to be the sons of police officers. Any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the

grounds of descent only has to be declared as unconstitutional...

It is also relevant to refer the decision Of K.P. SlVASUBRAMANIAM, J., in W.P. No. 15926 of 1988, dated August 4, 1998. The learned

Judge while considering similar claim in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., giving employment to sons and wards of the existing employees has held:

Apart from what has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court on its interpretation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, it is unbeatable

that in a democratic set up any public employment could be assigned only on the basis of the descent. Recently, the Supreme Court has also dealt

with the issue of giving admission to students in professional colleges fixing a quota or giving preference only to the sons and daughters of the

employees of institutions of the respective Universities, as illegal, it is also a matter of surprise that how any labour union wedded to the idea of

welfare of the working class as a whole can bargain for such an outmoded illegal claim and that too in a public establishment in which employment

is of a scientific and technical nature. Permitting such a practice would only render public service as hereditary and no other individuals other than

the sons or daughters of an existing set of employees can hope to gain any public employment.

In our case, even in the counter-affidavit it is admitted that there is a proposal to consider the near relatives of employees for engagement as

casuals, in Para. 22 it is stated:

I submit that dialogues are on with the Air India Employees'' Guild, the recognised union of the ground category of employees, to consider the

near relatives of employees for engagement as casuals, so that a pool can be formed and casuals can be drawn from the said pool to meet the

requirements.

The proposal of the management and the Employees'' Guild to have near relatives of employees for engagement as casuals and a pool can be

formed and casuals can be drawn from the said pool to meet the requirements cannot be accepted. The said proposal is opposed to the law laid

down by the Supreme Court in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India (supra). I am in agreement with the view expressed by K.P.

SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J., in the above referred decision. It is unfortunate that the Employees'' Guild is anxious to include relatives of their

members in the proposed pool. The action of the management and the Employees'' Guild to create a pool of casuals only from the wards and

children, relatives of the employees of the Air India has got to be negatived, since their claim is based on ""descent"" only. It is made clear that, if

they want to constitute a pool of casuals, the management is directed to give preference to those persons who are not covered in the settlement,

dated June 7, 1999. It is further made clear that, this aspect can also be considered in the dispute which is pending before the competent authority.

Sri A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the recognised union-fifth respondent has also brought to my notice the pendency of issue

relating to non-employment of certain persons before the competent authority. In the light of the fact that the recognised union has already raised a

dispute and the same is pending before the competent authority no direction can be issued by this Court as claimed by the petitioners.

Under these circumstances, I am unable to sustain the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners, except as found in Para. 27,

consequently all the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No Costs.

In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, connected WMPs., are also dismissed.