TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Air India subsidiary's canteen workers win Supreme Court case, deemed statutory employees</h1> <h3>Balwant Rai Saluja and Ors. Versus Air India Ltd. and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government Industrial Tribunal's decision that the canteen run by a subsidiary of Air India is a statutory canteen ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the canteen run by HCI for Air India is a statutory canteen under the Factories Act.2. Whether engaging contract workers in the canteen amounts to a sham and camouflage by Air India.3. Validity of the findings and reasons recorded by the CGIT.4. Whether the High Court's findings in setting aside the CGIT's award are erroneous.5. Reliefs entitled to the concerned workmen.Summary:Issue 1: Statutory CanteenThe CGIT concluded that the canteen run by HCI for Air India is a statutory canteen required u/s 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, as Air India employs more than 250 workers. The Delhi Factory Rules, 1950, particularly Rules 65 to 70, mandate the provision of such canteens. The Notification dated 21st January 1991, issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, included Air India in the schedule of factories required to maintain a canteen.Issue 2: Sham and CamouflageThe CGIT found that the employment of canteen workers through HCI, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Air India, was a sham to circumvent the statutory obligations and deny workers their legitimate rights. The practice of employing workers for 40 days with artificial breaks was deemed an unfair labor practice u/s 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court, referring to the principles laid down in Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union and other cases, upheld the CGIT's decision to pierce the corporate veil and recognize Air India as the principal employer.Issue 3: Validity of CGIT FindingsThe CGIT's findings were based on substantial evidence, including admissions by Air India's witness that more than 2000 employees availed of the canteen facilities. The CGIT rightly held that the concerned workmen were employed in permanent vacancies and were entitled to regularization as employees of Air India. The Supreme Court agreed with these findings, emphasizing that the statutory obligation to provide a canteen indicates the permanent nature of the work.Issue 4: High Court's FindingsThe High Court's decision to set aside the CGIT's award was found erroneous. The High Court had relied on the separate legal identity of HCI and Air India, ignoring the statutory obligations and the real employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the CGIT's well-founded findings and failed to apply the correct legal principles.Issue 5: Reliefs to WorkmenThe Supreme Court restored the CGIT's award, directing Air India to absorb the concerned workmen as permanent employees with all consequential benefits, including back wages. The termination of services during the pendency of the dispute was deemed illegal, and the affected workmen were ordered to be reinstated with full back wages.Separate Judgment:Justice V. Gopala Gowda dissented, emphasizing the need to pierce the corporate veil and recognize the statutory obligations of Air India. He highlighted the unfair labor practices and the permanent nature of the work, supporting the CGIT's findings and the workmen's claims for regularization.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
