IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 13-11-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.3749 of 2003 1.S.Ravi 2.M.K.Purushothaman Pani 3.M.Annadurai 4.M.Nandagopal 5.M.Jagadeesh 6.K.Seethapathy 7.S.Mohandoss 8.M.Mohammed Eliyas 9.R.Sankar 10.S.Palani Velu 11.EG.Nathan .. Petitioners. Versus 1.International Airports Authority of India, Madras Airport Represented by its General Manager, Madras-600027. 2.Ex-Servicemen Airlink Transport Service Limited- represented by its Director-General, (Recruitment) 62, Yasuwant Place, Chanakkiyapuram, New Delhi-110 021. 3.Ex-Servicemen Airlink Transport, Service Limited-represented by its Branch Manager, Madras Airport, Madras-600 027. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed under Article 226 of constitution of India seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the representations, dated 22.11.2002, 23.1.2003 and 24.1.2003, within the stipulated period. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban (R1) No Appearance (R2 & R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the representations, dated 22.11.2002, 23.1.2003 and 24.1.2003, within a specified period. 2. It has been stated that the petitioners have been working as contract labourers, since 1985, in the various branches of the first respondent. Even though the services of the petitioners were permanent and perennial in nature, they were not absorbed on par with the regular employees of the International Airports Authority of India. Therefore, the petitioners have made representations to the first respondent to regularise their services and absorb them in the posts, where they were employed from the date of their initial appointment and treat them on par with the regular employees of the first respondent. Since the said representations were not considered by the first respondent, the petitioners have come before this Court by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had placed before this Court, a communication, dated 22.1.2003, from Airports Authority of India, which is as follows: "This is with reference to your representation, dated 25.11.2002, for regularisation of your Union contract workmen services. The said representation has been disposed of by the Competent Authority as per the Hon'ble High Courts' direction dated 6.11.2000 in the W.P.No.13698 of 2000 on merits and in accordance with law as stated below: 1. The contract between Airports Authority of India and the Ex-servicemen Airlink Transport Service Ltd was expired on 31st December 1992 and the same was not renewed thereafter. 2. The subject case was filed by the petitioner's union in the year 2000 and there was a delay of eight years. 3) a) Further the Central Government has not issued any notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971, abolishing the employment of the contract labour in Trolley Retrievals & Car Parking. There was never any relationship of employer and employee at any time. Even as contract labourers, your members have not been working under any contractor of the Authority. b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. National Union Water Front Workers case has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ held that "neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 nor any other provision in the act, whether expressly nor by necessary implication provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by an Appropriate Government under sub-section 1 of Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently, the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labourer working in the concerned establishment". In the above circumstances, it is clarified that there is no contract labour and principle employer relationship between AAI and you and the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act are not applicable to you. It is further clarified that, there is no notification of the central government under Section 10 of the contract labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971, thus the judgement in the said case is not applicable to you and you cannot claim automatic absorption. In view of the above it is informed that your representation, dated 25.11.2002, cannot be considered and the same is rejected." 4. It has been further stated that the representation, dated 25.11.2002, had been disposed of in compliance with the order, dated 6.11.2000, passed by this Court in W.P.No.13698 of 2000, wherein, a similar request had been made by the contract workmen. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, the writ petition stands closed, as no further orders are required to be passed in the said writ petition. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh 1. The General Manager, International Airports Authority of India, Madras Airport Madras-600027. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Director-General, (Recruitment) Ex-Servicemen Airlink Transport Service Limited 62, Yasuwant Place, Chanakkiyapuram, New Delhi-110 021. 3. The Branch Manager, Ex-Servicemen Airlink Transport, Service Limited Madras Airport, Madras-600 027. 1 cc To Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, SR.63445 Writ Petition No.3749 of 2003 SSN(CO) SRA(23/12/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/