http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2987-2989 1997

PETITIONER: INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/12/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J U D G M E N T

     RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     In these matters we are concerned with I.A.  Nos.  7-9 of  1999 in Civil Appeals Nos.  2987-2989 of 1997.  In these applications  common relief sought for by the applicants  is that  they are also covered by the judgment dated 06.12.1996 and the consequent orders made on 11.04.1997 passed in these appeals.   The workmen in respect of whom these applications are   made  are  Sweepers  in   the  Parking  Areas  in  the International  Airport and National Airport.  Civil  Appeals Nos.   2987-2989  of  1997  were disposed  of  on  11.4.1997 holding  that on the abolition of the contract labour system Sweepers  in such Airports are entitled to be regularised in service   as  indicated  therein.    The  cause  for   these applications  is  that  the respondents are  contesting  the entitlement of the applicants for regularisation in service. The  stand  of the respondents is that these applicants  are Sweepers employed in the parking areas of the Airports which does  not  form  part of the building and  the  notification dated  December  9,  1976  does  not  cover  such  employees inasmuch  as the said notification has prohibited employment of  contract  labour  for sweeping,  cleaning,  dusting  and watching of building owned or occupied by the establishment. Further objection to the claim of the applicants is that the Parking  Areas are allotted to different contractors who are obliged  to keep areas clean.  The Sweepers with whom we are concerned  in  these interlocutory applications work in  the car  parks in the Santacruz and Sahar Airports at Mumbai and they  are six in number.  It is difficult to conceive of the airport being functional without a car park and that the car park  is  not a part of the building.  The Airport  includes not only landing and taking off areas for the aircrafts, the run  ways and aircraft maintenance areas, but also passenger facilities.   Passenger  facilities would certainly  include car  parking and it cannot be said that car parking is not a part  of the building.  Building in its ordinary sense would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

include  appurtenances which form thereof unless it be  that expression  building  is  to be understood as  was  done  by Merchant  of  Venice  with  reference  to  pound  of  flesh. Therefore,   we  cannot  agree  with   the  stand   of   the respondents.   Next objection is that there is an  agreement with  the  contractors who are to maintain the  car  parking areas  and  they  have  an  obligation  to  maintain  proper cleanliness  in the car parking areas and the expenditure in regard  to  the same will have to be borne by the  licensee. Inasmuch  as  the  notification issued  under  the  Contract Labour  (Abolition  &  Regulation)   Act,  1970  covers  the Sweepers  employed in respect of buildings owned or occupied by  the  establishment,  it is unnecessary to  examine  this aspect  of  the matter.  Inevitable conclusion is  that  the judgment  rendered in Civil Appeals Nos.  2987-2989 of  1997 following  the decisions in Air India Statutory  Corporation etc.   v.  United Labour Union & Ors., etc., 1996 (9)  SCALE 70,  and Masih Charan & Ors.  v.  Union of India & Ors.   in Writ Petition (C ) No.  219 of 1995 dated March 10, 1997, is applicable to these workmen also.

     We  clarify  that position and allow the  applications accordingly.