Delhi High Court Directs Labour Court To Reconsider Maintainability Of Airport Employees Union's Plea Against Air India Over Pay Parity

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Labour Court to reconsider the maintainability of an application filed by the Airport Employees Union against Air India Limited, seeking parity of pay for sub-contract workers.

For context, Air India had engaged M/s. Neha International for providing services of loading and unloading of passenger baggage. The firm engaged 183 contract workers for the purpose.

However, after expiry of contract, the Employees Union approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (DLC) under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, seeking parity of wages and service conditions for the 183 contract workers with the regular loaders/helpers of Air India.

After DLC held that contract workers were entitled to the reliefs sought, the Union approached the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, seeking implementation of this order.

Air India however contested the maintainability of this plea, stating that there existed no employer-employee relationship between Air India and the contract workers.

The airline further contended that the DLC order was merely an administrative direction imposing conditions on the contractor's licence, and could not be treated as an “award” or “settlement” under the ID Act.

It relied on Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour Rules to contend that it merely regulates the licensing conditions of the contractor by mandating parity of wages and service conditions where similar work is performed by regular and contract workers; and this Rule does not statutorily impose any corresponding liability upon the principal employer to bear such parity payments.

The Labour Court however dismissed Air India's application, prompting it to approach the High Court.

Opposing the airline's plea, the Union submitted that the principle underlying Rule 25(2)(v)(a) is to ensure that contract labour is not exploited by being paid wages lower than those paid to directly employed workmen performing the same or similar work.

It argued that Air India, being the principal employer, cannot shirk responsibility for ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.

The High Court at the outset observed that the Labour Court's order rejecting the airline's application contesting maintainability was “conspicuously brief” and lacked any substantive reasoning.

It observed that Air India's challenge went to the very root of jurisdiction, whether a claim for parity of wages founded upon Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CLRA Rules could be enforced directly against the principal employer through Section 33C(2).

Such an objection, the Court said, required a detailed examination of the statutory framework and binding authorities.

“The impugned order dated 01.09.2015 cannot be sustained being cryptic in nature. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present matter deserves to be remitted back to the learned Tribunal,” the Court said and directed the Labour Court to adjudicate Air India's application afresh, with a well-reasoned speaking order.

Appearance: 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 Air India; Mr. Braj Kishore Roy, Adv for Union

Case title: Air India Limited v. Airport Employees Union (Regd.) & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1414

Case no.: W.P.(C) 9924/2015

Click here to read order