IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER WRIT PETITION NO.51947/2013 (L-TER) Between: The Management of M/s LSG Sky Chefs (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru International Airport Ltd., Devanahali, Bangalore 560 300. Reptd. by its Director Operations-India, Mr.Anup Kumar Sahu, Aged about 51 years.. Petitioner. (By Sri K.R.Anand, Adv.) And: 1 Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India/Bharath Sarkar, Shram Mantralay, New Delhi.
2 2 LSG Sky Chefs Staff & Workers Union, No.141, 7 th Cross, Shabari Nagar Road, Ramakrishna Hegde Nagar, Bangalore 560 045, By its President.. Respondents. (By Sri Y.Hariprasad, CGSC for R1 Sri D.Ronald, party-in-person for R2) --- This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order at Annexure H dated 27.2.2012 issued by the 1 st respondent, etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in B Group this day, the Court passed the following: ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order at Annexure H dated 27.2.2012 whereby the Government of India has referred the dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore ( CGIT for short).
3 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of providing flight catering service. It is situated within the administrative area of Kempegowda International Airport Limited. The second respondent is the Union, which raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, questioning the fixation of shift timings of the workmen. Since the conciliation failed, the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent the failure report dated 21.3.2011 to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The Central Government referred the following dispute to the CGIT: Whether the workmen of the management of M/s LSG Sky Chefs (India) Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore in fixing the shift timings as per Annexure-1 contrary to the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 is legal and justified? Whether the same amounts to overlapping shifts and legal? What relief the applicant union is entitled to?
4 4. Sri K.R.Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appropriate Government is the State Government for reference of the dispute under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ID Act for short) and not the Central Government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. He has drawn my attention to the memorandum of association and articles of association of the petitioner company at Annexure A. He has also drawn my attention to the service provider right holder agreement at Annexure B and the certified standing orders at Annexure E. It is argued that the industry is not carried on either by the Central Government or under the authority of the Central Government. Petitioner is not even engaged in air transport service, which is an enumerated item in Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS VS. NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS AND OTHERS 2001 II LLJ 1087.
5 5. On the other hand, Sri D.Ronald, the representative of the second respondent-union and the learned Counsel for the first respondent have supported the order of the Central Government impugned herein. It is their submission that the petitioner has obtained the certificate of registration under Section 7(ii)(a) of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. They have drawn my attention to the definition of air transport service in Section 2(e) of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, which means any service, for any kind of remuneration, whatsoever, for the transport by air of persons, mail or any other thing, animate on inanimate, whether such service relates to a single flight or series of flights. They have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2011) 12 SCC 449 in support of their contentions.
6 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 7. As stated above, the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of flight catering service. It has entered into an agreement with the Bangalore International Airport Limited as per Annexure B. Clause 3 of the agreement provides for the scope of the agreement such as grant of service provider rights. In clause 13.8, the petitioner acknowledges that in order to provide the flight catering services to the air carriers, it is essential to execute an agreement between the petitioner and the air carrier. In the event that such an agreement has not been executed between an Air Carrier and the petitioner, BIAL may instruct the petitioner to enter into such agreement on terms and conditions as are reasonably appropriate and the petitioner shall comply with any such directions of the BIAL. Schedule A of the agreement provides for description of
7 flight catering services. Some of the flight catering services are, providing meals and dishes to passengers and crews in accordance with agreements between the air carrier and the petitioner; providing the quantities, brands and qualities of dry stores, additional items and/or special services, all equipment such as dishes, eating utensils, service trays, trolley, ovens, etc., as agreed between the air carrier and the petitioner. The petitioner is also required to provide related services such as cleaning, sorting, inspection, reassembling, etc., of mentioned equipment; providing storage facilities and storage services as also laundry services and catering ramp handling. 8. Section 2(e) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 defines air transport service as under: air transport service means any service, for any kind of remuneration, whatsoever, for the transport by air of persons, mail or any other thing, animate or inanimate, whether such service relates to a single flight or series of flights.
8 9. In DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED s case (supra), a question arose as to whether trolleys at airports relate to air transportation. It has been held as under: 54. Under the ID Act (and therefore CLRAA), the third situation in which the Central Government is the appropriate Government is in relation to industrial disputes concerning air transport services. The question for the purposes of this case, then, is whether the trolley retrieval services performed by DIAL are done for the transport by air of persons, mail, or any other thing. Clearly, trolley retrievers themselves are not physically transporting anything by air. However, it is entirely possible that the drafters of the AAI Act did not intend to restrict the coverage of this provision merely to pilots, stewardesses, and others engaged in the actual, physical transport of people and objects, as DIAL would have liked the Court to believe. Clearly, trolleys at airports relate to air transportation, just as they relate to a single flight or a series of flights.
9 55. On behalf of DIAL, it was submitted that air transport services as enumerated industry under the ID Act replaced an earlier listing of Indian Airlines and Air India, two corporations clearly engaged in the actual physical transportation of individuals by air. At the time of amendment when private airline operators had started functioning and as air transport service they included all airline operators, private or public and the said industry was included as an enumerated industry. This makes it abundantly clear that air transport service concerns airline operators only. 56. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 57. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 58. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 59. In the instant case, under Section 12-A of the AAI Act all functions have been given to DIAL except watch and ward function, air traffic service and civil enclaves. From the provisions of OMDA, it is clear that all functions of AAI barring reserved activities
10 and all land except certain carved out assets have been given to DIAL. DIAL has admitted that AAI has transferred to it all functions except those related to watch and ward, air traffic service and civil enclaves, none of which can be considered as air transport service. That being the case, AAI must have transferred its duty to provide air transport service to DIAL and the Central Government must therefore, be the appropriate Government for DIAL under CLRAA and the ID Act. 10. It is clear from the aforesaid decision that trolleys at the airports relate to air transportation just as they relate to a single flight or a series of flights. 11. Section 2(a) of the ID Act defines appropriate Government. Air transport service is an industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the ID Act. Therefore, appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government is the Central Government. The petitioner is involved in airline catering, which is
11 a part of the management of air transport service. Flight catering is a part of air transport service as it has to be serviced in the air cabin. When the trolley retrieval service is held to be an air transport service, there is no reason why the flight catering service should not be treated as air transport service. 12. I have perused the decision of the Apex Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD s case (supra) relied by Sri K.R.Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The said decision has no application to the facts of this case. 13. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. BMM/- Sd/- JUDGE.