INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR.versusINTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.

           INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY                                           A
               EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR.
                           v.
    INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.

                             DECEMBER 8, 2000
                                                                                     B
             (S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]


      Contract Labour :

       Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970-Applicants C
working as sweepers in the International Airport and National Airport
claiming regularisation in service inasmuch as the contract labour system
had been abolished-Respondents objecting on the ground that the
notification under the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act covers
only the sweepers employed in respect of buildings owned or occupied by the D
establishment and that the parking areas of the Airports do not form part of
the building- -Tenability of-Held, it cannot be said that car parking is not
a part of the building as building in its ordinary sense would include
appurtenances which form thereof -Applicants entitled to be regularised in
service.
                                                                                     E
      These applications were made by sweepers working in the car parks in
the lntemutional Airport and National Airport for a declaration that they were
also entitled to be regularised in service on the abolition of the contract labour
system.

     On behalf of the respondents, it wus contended that these upplicants
                                                                                     F
were sweepers employed in the parking areas of the Airports which did not
form part of the building; that the notification issued under the Contruct
Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970 did not cover such employees
inasmuch as the said notification only prohibited employment of contruct
labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and washing of building owned or              G
occupied by the establishment; that the parking areus were allotted to different
contractors who were obliged to keep areas clean and the expenditure in
regard to the same had to be borne by the licensee.

      Allowing the applications, the Court
                                                                                     H
                                      475
    476                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A           HELD : It is difficult to conceive of an 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 aircraft, the run ways
    and aircraft maintenance areas, but also passenger facilities. Passenger
    fllcilities would certainly include car parking and it cannot be said that car
B   parking is not a part of the building. Building in its ordinary sense would
    include appurtenances which form thereof. Therefore, the notification issued
    under the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970 which covers
    the sweepers employed in respect of buildings owned or occupied by the
    establishment, will also apply to the sweepers working in the car parks in
    the International Airport and National Airport. (477-C, D, F)
c          Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United Labour Union & Ors.
    etc., (1996) 9 SCALE 70 and Masih Charan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
    Writ Petition (C) No. 219of1995 decided by Supreme Court on 10.3.1997,
    held applicable.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
D
          I.A. Nos. 7-9 of 1999.
                                              IN
          Civil Appeal No. 2987-2989of1997.

E         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.96 of the Bombay High Court
    in W.P. Nos. 1494/89, 2365/90 and 504of1991.

         Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Parikh and P.R. Chandrachud for
    the Applicants/Appellants.

F        R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Jaya
    Srivastava, Ms. Omika Dubey, Uday Gupta and Vineet Kumar for the
    Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          RAJENDRA BABU, J. In these matters we are concerned with I.A. Nos.
G 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 l 1.04.1997
    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
H   National Airport. Civil Appeals Nos. 2987-2989 of 1997 were disposed of on
 INTER. AIRPORT AlJTH. EMPL. UNION ... INTER. AIRPORT AUTH.[RAJENDRA BABU,J.]   477
 11.4.1997 holding that on the abolition of the contract labour system Sweepers       A
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            B
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.                                                                          c
        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          D
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 include appurtenances which form thereof unless it be that
expression building is to be understood as was done by Merchant of Venice             E
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          F
issued under the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970 covers
the Sweepers employl?d 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        G
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.
M.P.                                                               I.As. allowed.     H