International Airport Authority of India vs Digambar Madye and Others

1. By notification dated 2.3.1993 of the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi directed that there will be prohibition of contract labour in the job of Telephone Operator in the establishment of the International Airport Authority of India. It appears that some other category of workmen filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which quashed the notification dated 2.3.1993 and issued certain directions. This judgment was carried in appeals and the same were disposed of by this Court's order dated 1.3.1997.

2. It is thereafter the review petition before the Bombay High Court was filed on which the impugned order has been passed. In this order in review, it has been observed that in the earlier writ petition which was filed before the Bombay High Court, there was no challenge to the notification dated 2.3.1993. Even in the amendment to that writ petition, the said notification was not challenged. It is on this basis that in the impugned judgment, the earlier judgment of 26.3.1996 was reviewed and the observation to the effect that the notification dated 2.3.1993 is quashed which was contained in the said judgment was set aside and the notification of 2.3.1993 was restored. It was further directed that the order in review had the effect of granting relief only to Telephone Operators employed in the International Airport Authority of India.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the writ petition could not be filed before the Bombay High Court because the said judgment was merged with the disposal of the special leave petition by this Court. Even if it be so, we are of the opinion that the impugned decision of the High Court is correct. The notification of 2.3.1993 had the effect of prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the job of Telephone Operators in the establishment of International Airport Authority of India, Neither the Telephone Operators nor the Airport Authority had any grievance with this notification and therefore, the question of said notification being set aside did not arise. The impugned direction is, therefore, correct. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.