1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.362 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.123 OF 2009 Airports Authority of India .... Appellant V/s. Indian Airport Kamgar Union and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.S.Patil with Mr.A.S.Patil, for the appellant. Ms.Jane Cox, for respondent NO.1. WITH APPEAL NO.526 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.123 OF 2009 Vashist Yadav and Ors. ..... Appellants V/s. Airport Authority of India and Ors. ...... Respondents Ms.Jane Cox, for the appellants. Mr.S.S.Patil with Mr.A.S.Patil, for respondent No.1. Mr.P.N.Mahajan, Intervenor. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2009 P.C. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31-03-2009 in Writ Petition No.123 of 2009. The appellant in Appeal No.362 of 2009 i.e. Airports Authority of India, has filed Writ Petition NO.123 of 2009 before the learned Single 2 Judge challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal by holding that the contract in question is sham and bogus one and the concerned workers are the direct employees of the appellant. The Indian Airport Kamgar Union had initially instituted Writ Petition No.78 of 2002 against the Airport Authority for writ of mandamus directing the authority to absorb the concerned workers in the employment. The Division Bench disposed of the writ petition, directing the Central Government to make a reference before the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the dispute and came to the conclusion that the contract in question is sham and bogus one and in fact, the concerned workers were performing duties directly for the employer. Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal allowed the Reference of the Workers by holding that they are direct employees of the Airport Authority and they are entitled for back wages from 2003. The aforesaid decision of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the appellant-Authority by filing the writ Petition No. 123 of 2009. The learned Single Judge while admitting the writ petition, granted stay in so far as the order of the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, but directed that the appellant should deposit regular salary before this Court and there is a consequential order of reinvestment also. 2. The aforesaid interlocutory order is challenged by the Airport Authority in so far as directions regarding granting service 3 protection to the concerned workers as well as regarding direction to deposit salary before this Court. On behalf of some of the workers who are not members of the Union, Appeal No.526 of 2009 is filed on their behalf, in so far as the learned Single Judge has not allowed the workers to withdraw the amount deposited by the authority. 3. Since common point is involved in both these appeals, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order. The learned counsel for the Airport Authority submitted that the learned Single Judge should not have passed impugned order by which the service condition is protected and the authority has been directed to deposit the amount in the Court. On behalf of the workers, Ms.Jane Cox, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the workers should be allowed to withdraw the amount which is deposited in this Court. 4. After going through the impugned order, we are of the view that this is not a case in which we would like to interfere with the interlocutory order, as ultimately if the workers succeeds they will be entitled to withdraw the amount and consequential order regarding employment with the Airport Authority can be passed. So far as the appellant-Airport Authority is concerned, it is required to be noted that the Court has merely asked them to deposit the amount and has not even permitted the workers to withdraw the same. Accordingly, interest of the 4 appellant is also secured in this behalf. Considering the nature of the dispute, the learned Single Judge has passed equitable order, which requires no interference at our end. Considering the fact that the Airport Authority is directed to deposit the amount regularly and the fact that the concerned workers have succeeded before the Industrial Tribunal, they are not in a position to secure their employment, in our view, it would be just and proper to request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the main writ petition at the earliest latest by 31-01-2010, so that the interim arrangement is not required to be continued further. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue, as the writ petition is still at large before the learned Single Judge. It is agreed between both the learned counsel that they will cooperate with the early hearing of the writ petition and both of them are interested in early disposal of the writ petition. 5. So far as the interim arrangement is concerned, it is directed that the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge shall continue to operate till the writ petition is disposed of. 6. With the above observations, both the appeals are disposed of. ( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)