WP/36366/2003 of SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED Vs 1.THE PRESIDING OFFICER, on 22 December 2006

1. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai.

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call forthe records on the file of the first respondent, quash the order, dated14.10.2003, made in I.A.No.744 of 1999 in I.D.No.381 of 1995 and toforbear the first respondent from proceeding further in I.D.No.381 of 1995.

The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the firstrespondent, quash the order, dated 14.10.2003 made in I.A.No.744 of 1999in I.D.No.381 of 1995 and to forbear the first respondent from proceedingfurther in I.D.No.381 of 1995.

The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writpetition are as follows:

2. The petitioner is a world renowned Airlines Corporation and itoperates a fleet of planes flying on almost all the commercial routes ofthe world offering passenger, cargo, mail and other services. Thepetitioner Airlines is well known for the high exemplary standard ofservices and had been getting the best Airlines award of the year for anumber of years. The award is given for maintaining high standards of technical and operational excellence. The petitioner Airlines providesexcellent service conditions for its employees and has been following allthe Labour Laws applicable to them, scrupulously.

3. It has been further stated that one of the former Managers of thepetitioner Airlines, Zainel Arifin, while working in Chennai, had engagedthe second respondent as a personal driver and there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner Airlines and the secondrespondent. After Zainel Arifin was transferred to Singapore, the secondrespondent had raised an Industrial Dispute against the petitionerAirlines alleging non-employment. The Industrial Dispute was raised by thesecond respondent, under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,(herein after referred to as the Act). Under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act,the Appropriate Government for "Controlled Industry" is the CentralGovernment. Section 2(ee) of the Act defines the term "ControlledIndustry" as any Industry, the control of which, by the union, has beendeclared by any Central Act, to be expedient in the public interest. TheIndustries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, is the Central Actrelating to a Controlled Industry. Those Industries, which are mentionedin the first schedule of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act,1951, are called as Controlled Industries, for which the appropriateGovernment is the Central Government. Transportation through aircraft hasbeen included under Item 7 Schedule I of the Industries (Development andRegulation) Act, 1951. Singapore Airlines is an Air Transport Company andtherefore, the appropriate Government for Singapore Airlines is theCentral Government.

4. Under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act, for an Air Transport Service,the appropriate Government is the Central Government. Therefore, anyIndustrial Dispute with regard to Singapore Airlines should be referred bythe Central Government to the Central Government Labour Court foradjudication. Whereas, in the present case, the second respondent hadraised the Industrial Dispute, under Section 2A of the Act, before theLabour Court constituted by the State Government, as if the StateGovernment is the appropriate Government. In view of the abovecircumstances, the first respondent labour Court has no jurisdiction toadjudicate the Industrial Dispute. In view of the above legal position,the petitioner Airlines had filed an interim application in I.A.No.744 of1991 questioning the jurisdiction of the first respondent in adjudicatingthe dispute.

5. In the affidavit filed by the second respondent in respect ofW.V.M.P.No.674 of 2004, it is stated that he has been working as a driverin the petitioner Airlines, from 5.5.1984 till his retrenchment fromservice, on 4.8.1992. He had filed I.D.No.381 of 1995, before thePrincipal Labour Court, Chennai, challenging his retrenchment followingthe failure report issued by the Conciliation Officer. The petitionerherein had filed a counter statement and the matter had been posted forenquiry. The second respondent was examined as W.W.1, on 3.8.1999, and the case was posted for cross-examination, on 17.8.1999. The petitionerdid not proceed with the case and at that stage I.A.No.744 of 1999 came tobe filed. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent in thesaid interim application stating that the Industries (Development andRegulation) Act, 1951, was concerned with the development and regulationof Industries involved in manufacturing or production of goods andarticles and not with the service Sector. The first schedule of the Actbegins with the words "any Industry engaged in the manufacture orproduction of any of the articles mentioned under each of the followingheadings or sub-headings" and under Item 7(1) "aircraft" is mentioned.The petitioner-Airlines, admittedly, is not involved in the manufacture orproduction of aircraft and it only provides service of transporting peopleand cargo. It was admitted by the petitioner Airlines that they did nothave a registration under Section 10 or a licence under Section 11 of theAct for manufacturing or for production. If that be true, they have toclose down their undertaking and would be liable for committing an offenceunder the Act punishable by law if they are carrying on the activity ofmanufacturing or production without complying with the provisions of thesaid Act.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as for therespondents.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Airlines contendsthat Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, states that theAppropriate Government is the Central Government in case of Air TransportService. However, it is seen that the words "Air Transport Service" havebeen substituted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment), Act, 1996, witheffect from 11.10.1995 only whereas, the claim statement had been filed bythe second respondent in I.D.No.381 of 1995, under Section 2A of theIndustrial Disputes Act, on 24.4.1995 itself. This shows that at the timeof filing of the claim statement, the appropriate Government for AirTransport Service was not the Central Government. Therefore, the abovecontention of the petitioner Airlines cannot be correct in law.

8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerAirlines, Section 2(ee) of the Act defines the term "Controlled Industry"as "any Industry, the control of which, by the Union, has been declared bythe Central Act, to be expedient in the public interest." It has beenfurther stated that the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951,is the Central Act relating to "Controlled Industry" and the firstschedule of the said Act enumerates the Controlled Industry for which theappropriate Government is the Central Government. Item 7 of Schedule I ofthe Industries (Development and Regulation Act, 1951, includes the term'aircraft'. However, it is seen that the schedule relates to 'productionor manufacture' of aircraft and it does not deal with transportation byaircraft, which is a service rendered by the petitioner-Airlines.Therefore, the above contentions of the petitioner Airlines are notacceptable.

9. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order passed by the Principal LabourCourt, Chennai, on 14.10.2003, in I.A.No.744 of 1999 in I.D.No.381 of1995, read as follows:

"8. This I.D. was filed in the year 1995. Counterwas filed, on 22.10.1996. W.W.1 was examined in chief,on 29.6.1999 and 3.8.1999. Exs.W.1 to W.13 were marked.I.D. was posted for the cross-examination of W.W.1 from17.8.1999. This I.A. has been filed only, on12.11.1999. Though the counter was filed in the year1996, this I.A. was filed only, on 12.11.1999 i.e.,after a lapse of a 3 years. From this we can presumethat the petitioner/respondent has no intention toconduct the I.D. and he also wants to prolong the I.D.It is admitted by the petitioner/respondent that therespondent/petitioner was engaged as a driver. ThisI.D. was for reinstating the petitioner in service withbackwages and continuity of service.

9. Perused the counter in the main I.D., and theruling cited by the petitioner/respondent. There is nowhisper about the jurisdiction of this Court in themain counter. For the above reasons, I hold that thispetition was filed only to drag on the proceedings andthere is sufficient cause or reason to allow thispetition. Hence, this petition is dismissed with costsof Rs.2,000/-."

10. On a perusal of the records available and on an analysis of therival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that there is nosubstance in the contentions raised by the petitioner Airlines and thereis nothing shown for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court to set asidethe order of the first respondent labour Court, dated 14.10.2003, made inI.A.No.744 of 1999 in I.D.No.381 of 1995. In such view of the matter, thewrit petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. However, in view of the fact that the Industrial dispute inI.D.No.381 of 1995 has been pending from the year 1995, the firstrespondent Labour Court is directed to hear and dispose of the dispute onmerits, following the due procedure as established by law, within a periodof four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. With the above direction, the writ petition stands dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.44150 of 2003 and W.V.M.P.No.674of 2004 are closed.

Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo:

Presiding Officer,Principal Labour Court,Chennai.1 cc To Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates, Advocate, SR.64960.1 cc To M/S.King & Partridge, Advocate, SR.64768.NG(CO)RVL 04.01.2007

W.P.No.36366 of 2003