Madras High CourtWP/37746/2006dismissed as infructuous

V. Bhaskaran v. The Central Govt. Labour Court

2023-02-10Honourable Mr Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

1. V. Bhaskaran

2. V.Ramaraj

3. V.Thiruvengadam

4. E.Gunasekaran

5. N.Arumugam

6. K.K.Prasad

7. K.Selvam

8. B.Ramesh

9. D.Fredrich

10. K.N.Santhosh Kumar

11. N. Bharathi

12. G.Gopal ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Central Government Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.

2. Airports Authority of India rep.by its Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.

3. Delite Engineers, Mumbai Jolly Centre, Tilak Road, Santa Cruz(w) Mumbai 400 054.

4. Premier Technics, Mumbai 31, Guru Govind Singh Industrial Estate, Off West Express High way, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 063.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents to continue to engage the petitioners as Aerobridge Operators in the same manner as they did during the pendency of W.P.No.1676 of 1996 and I.D.No.381 of 2004 till the Award in I.D.No.381 of 2004 is published in the Central Government Gazette and 3 months thereafter to enable the petitioners to file a writ petition challenging the Award passed in I.D.No.381 of 2004 and getting suitable relief for their continuance and award costs.

For Petitioners : K. Balaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban for R2 No appearance for R1

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents to continue to engage the petitioners as Aerobridge Operators in the same manner as they did during the pendency of W.P.No.1676 of 1996 and

I.D.No.381 of 2004 till the Award in I.D.No.381 of 2004 is published in the Central Government Gazette and 3 months thereafter to enable the petitioners to file a writ petition challenging the Award passed in I.D.No.381 of 2004 and getting suitable relief for their continuance and award costs.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Airports Authority of India submitted that the writ petition was filed in regard to the appointment of Aerobridge operators and this Court granted interim order dated 21.09.2005 to go head with the selection process but subject to the outcome of the result of the I.D.No.381 of 2004. He further submitted that a docket order dated 26.09.2006 has been passed in I.D.No.381 of 2004 in favour of the second respondent/Airports Authority of India and therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition and this writ petition has become infructuous.

3. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

10.02.2023 dpq (3/3) Index :

Yes/No Speaking Order :

Yes/No

J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

dpq To

1. The Deputy General Manager Airports Authority of India (Personnel), Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.

2. The Presiding Officer, The Central Government Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.

(3/3) 10.02.2023