* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C.) No. 11717/2004 and C.M. No. 8217/2004(for stay) % Date of Decision: 11th August, 2009 # NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate. VERSUS $ SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Mr. K. Prabhakar, Advocate for Respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari and/ or any other appropriate writ or directions to set aside the impugned order of reference dated 27.06.2003 being reference No. L- 11012/51/2002 passed by respondent No. 1. 2. The impugned order of reference is Annexure-'A' at page 23 of the Paper Book. Vide impugned order, the Central Government made the following reference for adjudication by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi: “Whether the demand of the Air Port Employees Union from the management of Indian Airlines, New Delhi for regularising the services of Shri Dinesh Chaudhary and 5 others (as per list) who were engaged by M/s Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services, New Delhi is just and fair? If so, to what relief are the workman entitled and from what date?” W.P.(C) No.11717/2004 Page 1 of 4 3. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the impugned reference extracted above passed by respondent No. 1 is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to well- established principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others, 2001 (5) Scale 626. 4. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it may be noted that respondents No. 4 to 9 are the persons engaged by respondent No. 10 in connection with the work of gardening and landscaping awarded by the petitioner to respondent No. 10. These respondents No. 4 to 9 are the members of respondent No. 3 union. They have espoused their demand through respondent No. 3 union for their regularisation in the service of the petitioner and it is on this dispute being raised by the respondent No. 3 union for regularisation, impugned reference has been made by the Central Government for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as to whether their demand for regularisation in the service of the petitioner is just and fair and if so, to what relief they are entitled and from what date. 5. Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has also argued that since respondent No. 4 to 9 are admittedly employees of respondent No. 10, the impugned reference made by the Central Government in relation to their regularisation in the service of the petitioner is bad on the face of it and according to him, does not constitute an industrial dispute. 6. On giving my anxious consideration to the above arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, I W.P.(C) No.11717/2004 Page 2 of 4 could not persuade myself to agree with any of the above submissions made by the petitioner. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited & Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others (supra) is not applicable at this stage because the Court in the present writ petition is not dealing with abolition or regulation of the contract labour. What this Court has to see in the present writ petition is whether the impugned reference was beyond the competence of the Central Government or whether the said reference could not have been made for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The argument of Mr. Bhasin that since respondents No. 4 to 9 were admittedly the employees of respondent No. 10 and, therefore, according to him, the reference for their regularisation in the service of the petitioner could not have been made, is not acceptable. In case respondents No. 4 to 9 are the employees of respondent No. 10, then it may be a ground for the Industrial Adjudicator to answer the reference against them. Respondent No. 4 to 9 who seek their regularisation in the service of the petitioner were engaged by the respondent No. 10 in connection with the work of gardening and landscaping of the petitioner. The Industrial Adjudicator has to examine on the basis of evidence the circumstances and nature of employment under which respondents No. 4 to 9 came to be employed by respondent No. 10. The Industrial Adjudicator has also to see the terms of employment of respondents No. 4 to 9 and also the period of their employment for adjudicating whether their demand for regularisation in the service of the petitioner is just and fair or not. These are all disputed questions of fact and can be well-proved before the Industrial Adjudicator after both parties adduce their respective evidence on the reference. In the considered opinion of this court, the impugned reference was within W.P.(C) No.11717/2004 Page 3 of 4 the competence of the appropriate Government and cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. AUGUST 11, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'bsr' W.P.(C) No.11717/2004 Page 4 of 4