Delhi High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order, Directs Labour Court To Reconsider Maintainability Of Airport Employees Union’s Plea Against Air India Over Pay Parity
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Renu Bhatnagar set aside an order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and directed it to reconsider, within three months, the maintainability of a claim filed by the Airport Employees Union against Air India Limited. The case arises from a demand for parity of pay and service conditions for 183 baggage-handling workers engaged through M/s. Neha International, a contractor providing loading and unloading services for the airline. The Court held that the Tribunal’s earlier order dismissing Air India’s objection lacked reasoning and failed to address jurisdictional issues under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Both parties have been directed to appear before the Tribunal on November 17, 2025.
The petitioner, Air India Limited, a company engaged in air passenger and cargo services, had entered into a contract with M/s. Neha International for ground-handling operations at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Under this arrangement, 183 contract workers were engaged by the contractor for tasks such as loading and unloading of passenger baggage and handling of cargo. The contract, executed on a principal-to-principal basis, continued through extensions until its expiry in October 2002.
Following the expiry, the Airport Employees Union, representing the 183 contract workers, approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh, under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) and (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The union sought parity of wages and service conditions for the contract workers with those of regular loaders and helpers employed by Air India. The Deputy Labour Commissioner held that the contract workers were performing work of a similar nature and were therefore entitled to equal wages and service conditions at the entry level.
On the basis of this order, the union filed an application before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking computation and enforcement of the benefits allegedly due. Air India contested the application, asserting that no employer-employee relationship existed between it and the contract workers and that the Deputy Labour Commissioner’s order was administrative in nature, not an adjudicatory award capable of execution. It contended that any wage liability rested solely with the contractor.
The Tribunal dismissed Air India’s objection on maintainability, concluding that the application could proceed under Section 33C(2). Air India then filed a writ petition challenging this finding, arguing that the Tribunal had assumed jurisdiction without addressing the essential issue of whether a pre-existing right or liability under the Industrial Disputes Act had been established.
“It becomes necessary to examine the reasoning adopted by the learned Labour Court in the impugned order. The controversy herein does not merely turn on a factual dispute but raises an important question touching upon the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, considering the statutory order passed under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CLRA Rules.”
“Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that it is conspicuously brief and lacks any substantive reasoning on the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioner.” The Court recorded that the Labour Court “merely observed that the decisions relied upon by the management concerned ‘casual workmen’… On that premise alone, it concluded that the application under Section 33C(2) was maintainable.”
The Court reproduced the relevant portion of the impugned order and noted: “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.” It stated that the petitioner’s objection “went to the very root of jurisdiction, whether a claim for parity of wages founded upon Rule 25(2)(v)(a)… 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.”
Further, the Court stated: “The learned Labour Court’s statement that it had ‘no option except to reject’ the petitioner’s objection cannot substitute for an adjudication supported by reasoning. In the absence of a discussion on how the workers’ claim satisfied the test of a pre‑existing right or how the petitioner’s liability arose under Section 21 of the CLRA Act, the order cannot be said to disclose a proper application of mind.”
On authorities, the Court recorded: “The finding that all the rulings cited by the petitioner… pertained only to casual workmen is also erroneous.” It referred to a Karnataka High Court decision cited below that “relates to contractual workers… [and] the case of Hindustan Steelworks (supra)… was also relied upon.” The Court noted that the Tribunal “without dealing with the authorities… has brushed them aside only with one line order… which is an erroneous finding.”
The Court summed up: “The order… has referred to the arguments of the respondent but has not referred to the grounds/reasons and the arguments of the petitioner… The order does not reflect any analysis of the objections raised by the petitioner… The order clearly manifests the non‑application of mind by the Tribunal and is badly drafted, having many grammatical mistakes.” Concluding, the Court stated: “In the absence of any reasoned findings… this Court does not have the occasion to scrutinize the arguments of the petitioner… Having regard to the discussion above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order… cannot be sustained being cryptic in nature.”
“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court is set aside and the 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.”
“The present writ petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal/Labour Court on 17th November, 2025. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Mishra, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Mr. Azeem Samuel, Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Shrijeta Pratik, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Braj Kishore Roy, Adv.
Case Title: Air India Limited v. Airport Employees Union (Regd.) and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9494
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9924/2015
Bench: Justice Renu Bhatnagar
