Reasoning Doesn’t Meet Threshold Of Reasoned Order: Delhi High Court Asks Labour Court To Reconsider Maintainability Issue Of Application Of Airport Employees Union On Pay Parity

The writ petition before the High Court was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner challenging the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Tribunal) dismissing the petitioner’s application assailing the maintainability of an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) filed by the Respondent Airport Employees Union.

Referring to a portion of the impugned order dealing with the issue of maintanibility of the application under Section 33C(2), the Single Bench of Justice Renu Bhatnagar asserted, “This reasoning does not meet the threshold of a reasoned order, particularly in a matter that deals with the connection between the CLRA Act and ID Act. The petitioner‟s challenge went to the very root of jurisdiction, whether a claim for parity of wages founded upon Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CLRA Rules could be enforced directly against the principal employer through Section 33C(2). Such an objection required a detailed examination of the statutory framework and binding authorities.”

Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose represented the Petitioner while Advocate Braj Kishore Roy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Air India Limited (formerly Indian Airlines Limited), had entered into a contract with M/s. Neha International (second Respondent) for providing services of loading and unloading of passenger baggage, as well as handling import and export cargo for various international and domestic flights. After the expiry of the contract, the first Respondent, Airport Employees Union, representing 183 contract workers employed by the second Respondent, approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh (DLC), by filing a petition under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (CLRA), seeking parity of wages and service conditions with the regular loaders/helpers of Air India. The DLC held that the 183 contract workers, who were members of the Respondent Union, were entitled to wages and other service conditions equivalent to those of the regular loaders/helpers of Air India at the entry level.

The first Respondent filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking computation and implementation of the benefits allegedly accruing to the contract workers. The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the maintainability of this application on the ground that any claim for additional wages, if at all, could lie only against the contractor, i.e., second Respondent, and not against the petitioner, since the latter had no employer-employee relationship with the workmen concerned. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the impugned order, the Bench noted that the order, while rejecting the application of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the application of the respondent under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act had referred to the arguments of the respondent but had not referred to the grounds/reasons and the arguments of the petitioner as raised in the application filed by petitioner qua maintainability of petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

“The order does not reflect any analysis of the objections raised by the petitioner. The Tribunal/Labour Court confined itself to a bare observation that the decisions relied upon by the management were “inapplicable” and proceeded to reject the objection summarily in a cryptic manner. The order clearly manifests the non-application of mind by the Tribunal and is badly drafted, having many grammatical mistakes”, it noted.

Considering that the impugned order couldn’t be sustained due to its cryptic nature, the Bench disposed of the Petition and ordered, “...matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the application of petitioner regarding maintainability with the direction to pass a well-reasoned speaking order, deciding all the issues raised and law cited by both sides, within a period of three months of receiving this order.”

Cause Title: Air India Limited v. Airport Employees Union (Regd.) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9494)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, Advocates Amit Mishra, Mitakshara Goyal, Azeem Samuel, Akhil Kulshrestha, Shivam Goel, Shrijeta Pratik

Respondent: Advocate Braj Kishore Roy

Click here to read/download Order