Madras High CourtWP/17746/2018disposed of

S.Senthil Kumar v. The Union Of India

2019-04-02Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :02.04.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.17746 & 19367 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.22773, 21015, 24650 of 2018 & 4841 of 2019 1.S.Senthil Kumar 2.M.Anand 3.M.Sekar 4.S.Christy 5.S.Dillibabu 6.M.Ramesh Babu 7.K.Ranjan 8.David Antony Raj 9.R.Anbu 10.T.Jayachandran 11.N.Ravi 12.P.Jayaprakasam 13.T.Dhanasekaran 14.B.Deekaram 15.S.Jaya Anandaraj 16.N.Balakrishnan 17.R.Balu 18.A.Mani 19.V.Rajendran 20.R.Margina 21.V.Sezhiyan 22.D.Rajakumar 23.E.Sekar 24.S.Ramaswamy 25.S.Kalaysha 26.M.Chinnamunuswamy 27.Md.Megachandran 28.M.Ramesh Kumar 29.R.Ramesh 30.S.Murugan 31.R.Muruganandam 32.A.Venugopal 33.G.Ramkumar 34.K.Anbalagan 35.N.Venugopal 36.C.Venkatesan 37.J.Selvanathan

38.A.Chellappan 39.R.Ravi 40.M.Punniyakotti 41.A.Udayakumar 42.W.Lazar John 43.A.Janakiraman 44.A.Ayyamperumal 45.P.Manimaran 46.P.Kandan 47.C.Devan 48.S.Ashok 49.D.Loganathan 50.J.Pitchaipillai 51.E.Arul 52.M.Ponnan 53.B.Sreenivasulu 54.J.Rayman 55.D.Santhakumar 56.T.Gowthaman 57.S.Sridhar 58.C.Vikramaraj 59.K.Subramani 60.R.Deivamuthu 61.P.Sivakumar 62.C.Subramani 63.L.Raja 64.R.Jagadeesan 65.K.Devadoss 66.K.Panneerselvam 67.G.Linganathan 68.V.Thiyagarajan 69.B.Chandran 70.Joshua Newton 71.S.Ravichandran 72.R.Bhaskar 73.S.Venkatesan 74.R.Gajendran 75.S.Boopathy ..Petitioners in W.P.No.17746/2018 ******* 1.M.Karuppasamy 2.P.Sudalaimani 3.N.Vijayakumar 4.R.Arputharaj 5.S.Asirvatham 6.PV.Ravanaiah 7.M.Narayanakutty 8.S.Chandrasekar 9.G.Baskaran

10.V.Raman 11.S.Suresh 12.R.Sekar 13.V.Balaji 14.M.Gangadharan 15.A.K.Senthil Kumar 16.M.Lakshmanan 17.K.Sekar ..Petitioners in W.P.No.19367/2018 vs 1.The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi.

2.The Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd., Air Lines House, New Delhi - 110 001 3.The Executive Director, Air India Ltd., National Aviation Company of India Ltd., Air Lines House, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027 4.The General Manager-Personnel National Aviation Company of India Ltd., Air Lines House, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027.

5.The Manager HR, Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Air India Unity Complex, Pallavaram Cantonment, Chennai - 600 043. ..Respondents in both W.Ps Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 4 herein to regularize the service of the Petitioners by conferring permanent status of service to the respective individuals by placing them on regular pay scale and grade or pass any other appropriate order or direction as deem fit in accordance with the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioners : Ms.A.L.Ganthimathi for M/s.M.Sekar (in both W.Ps) For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan Central Government Standing counsel for R1 (in both W.Ps) Mr.N.G.R.Prasad and Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy for R2 to R4 (in both W.Ps) C O M M O N O R D E R The relief sought for in the present writ petitions is for a direction to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 herein to regularize the service of the Petitioners by conferring permanent status of service to the respective individuals by placing them on regular pay scale.

2.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that all the writ petitioners are similarly placed casual labourers working under the services of the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent. The writ petitioners are assisting as Helpers in all ground handling services in the Airport. In view of the fact that the writ petitioners are working for a considerable length of time, they are claiming regularization and permanent absorption in the establishment of the respondent. 3.The learned counsel for the respondents states that the regularization or permanent absorption at this point of time cannot be granted and the writ petitioners are allowed to work on certain terms and conditions as casual labourers. Their services are temporary and they were not initially appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.

The writ petitioners are being engaged, as and when their services are required for handling the Airport Services. In view of the fact that there is a change of control in Administration regarding the handling of the Airport ground works, the 2nd respondent cannot even consider the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of regularization.

4.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the similarly placed casual labourers earlier filed W.P.Nos.17513, 22212 & 29796 of 2010 and this Court passed an order on

28.03.2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- "16. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsels and perused the materials and pleadings placed on record.

17. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that in view of drastic changes in Aviation industry over a period of time due to open sky policy adopted by the Government of India, the monopoly of the respondent Airlines had ended. In view of global competition in the Aviation industry, the Airlines had also suffered huge financial loss and eventually even unable to pay salaries due to the permanent employees regularly. Moreover, when the ground handling activity has been outsourced in all Airports in the country and these petitioners having been employed only in such activity, they cannot be ordered to be absorbed permanently in the respondent Airlines. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent Airlines was not recruiting any permanent Helpers for the last many years after the exist of permanent employees from employment. That being the case, the question of consideration of the original prayer by this Court as sought for in the writ petitions, does not arise.

18. In view of the inevitable changes which took place in the Aviation industry, this Court has to take practical and pragmatic view to find just and equitable solution to the employment crisis faced by the petitioners. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that atleast the present state of employment of the petitioners with the 7th respondent has to be protected, since they cannot be made to work under constant fear of termination at any time, particularly, in the teeth of the fact that these petitioners had been employed as Helpers for more than two decades. That is why, probably the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had pleaded only for limited protection in order to atleast protect the present nature of employment of the petitioners, instead of seeking for absorption of their services with the respondent Airlines.

19. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that their nature of present employment as indicated in the contract of appointment entered into by the 7th respondent with the individual workman as reflected in specimen copy enclosed in additional typed set of papers, dated 19.5.2016, which

pertains to one of the workmen, namely, Thiru.S.Venkatesan, on the same terms and conditions and such employment shall be continued in respect of other petitioners who were offered such appointment till they attain the age of superannuation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that the requirement of man power may change from time to time due to fluctuating market trends as the ground handling activity may increase or decrease depending upon the client-Airlines patronage.

Therefore, considering the said submissions, this Court is of the view that as long as man power requirement is there by the second respondent, the services of the petitioners ought to be utilized and the petitioners at no point of time should be replaced by any other casual arrangement by resorting to employ other persons. It is made clear that on the basis of genuine man power requirement, it is always open to the 7th respondent to downsize or rightsize the employment as and when the situation demands and depending on such contingencies, these petitioners shall be continued in service with the terms and conditions of services as stipulated by the 7th respondent. In any case, the petitioners' employment cannot be brought to end by adopting any unfair mean or unfair labour practice by bringing other casual workers from the open market in order to displace the petitioners herein."

5.In view of the above judgment of this Court, the writ petitioners are also entitled to get the same benefit of their continuance in the present position as per the existing terms and conditions of service. As per the terms and conditions stipulated by the 5th respondent, the writ petitioners are entitled to get the benefit, provided they joined duty within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In other words, the writ petitioners are at liberty to join duty, provided they are ready to accept the terms and conditions to be imposed by the 5th respondent for the continuance of their service in Airport.

6.It is made clear that in the event of not joining with the services of the 5th respondent by the writ petitioners within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, then the respondents are at liberty to engage the other persons in order to run the Administration in the Airport peacefully.

7.With these observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kak To 1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi.

5.The Manager HR, Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Air India Unity Complex, Pallavaram Cantonment, Chennai - 600 043.

+1cc to Mr.S.Sathishrajan, Advocate SR.No.31545 +2cc to Mr.M.Sekar, Advocate SR.No.31690,31691 +2cc to Mr.NGR.Prasad, Advocate SR.No.31564,31565 W.P.Nos.17746 & 19367 of 2018 CNR(CO) GMY(16/04/2019)