^" cz^ . IN TI®HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE: AT JABALPUR WaPttNo. '"3 2> <^ PETITIONERS! OF 1999 I- ^ 1, srl Prabhakar Bagde.Aged 35 years, S/o» Sri Harish Chand Bagde, R/o» Kondra Para,Gudhiari,Raipur^ 2, Sri Sunil Bagde S/o*Hari Ram Bagde. 3^ Sri Narendra Mandape S/o#Premlal Mai^3ape» _ 4^ Sri Saresh Rajak S/o Chaturdas< | 5* srl Rajkumar S/p Girdhari Sagar. 6. sri Anll Uike S/o Shiv Charan Uike. 7o sri< Ganesh Thakur S/o Raj Bahadar 1 Singh. . . • ! Q^ Ashish -sharma S/o Manohar Prasad j Sharma« 1 9» Ram Kumar S/o Gir4hari Sagar - -., 10» Sri Deerianath S/o Madhula ll^ sri^ Dhadi Nag S/o Bhagwan Nag 12^ sri* Parshottam S/o Bhagat Vaha 13^ sri« Kripa Ram S/o Satyanand Sendre 14o sri. Anoba S/o Sri» Sakha 15* sm&< Santra Bai W/o Ghud Ghudre 16^ smt* Bhana Bai W/o Satu Kumar 17» Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Malkham 18« Smt^ Anita Bai W/o Khetripal^ 19* Smt^ Satya Bhama W/o Antho 20» Smt* Amrlta Bai W/o Sander 21^ S'cl^ Ashok Sahu S/o Late Uday Ram Sahu 22^ sri. Ram Sajeevan Sahu S/o Bokhanlal Sahu, 23 ^ Srio Rookam Das S/o Keja-Das. 24* snii. Vanita Bai W/o Threpal. All C/0 Prabhakar Bagde^ Kondrapara^ Ghadlyari, Raipar. ~ss - i; o » o RESPONDENTS; V ER S U S -lo Dlstrlct Manager^ 5'ooci Corporatlon of India, • - Mading Building^ 0'ail K-oad^^aipur^ .2» Depot Manager, Food Corporation'of india^ Gadlyarl 9 Ralpur*<. ^Q» SrlBabulal, Contractor, Pood Corporatlon of India^ Raipar Depot^Ashok Nagar^ Raipur,M.P. 4^ Presiding Officer,Laboar Court»Diirg< PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 ~OF -THB -CO-NSTITOT'iON OF TNDIAT--~ -.£-..._ ^p-l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 330 of 1999 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS VERSUS Sri Prabhakar Bagde and others District Manager, Food Corporation of India and others Shri P.S. Koshy counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Prashant Jaiswal learned Sr. counsel with Shri Pravesh Sharma forthe respondents 1 and 2. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (01.11.2011) Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Durg in ID Reference 34/95 rejecting the claim of the first party i.e. the petitioners herein for regularization. 2. Factsof the case in brief are that on 17.5.1995, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur made a reference to the Labour Court, Raipur in the following terms: "Whether the termination of the employees from services as mentioned in the list is legal and proper. If not, to what relief they are entitled and in this regard what direction is to be given to the management?" 3. The dispute was subsequently transferred to Labour Court, Durg; statement of claim was filed by the petitioners and they examined five witnesses in support of their case. Written statement was filed by the Food Corporation of India denying the claim of the petitioners though they have not examined any witness in support of their case. 4. As per the case of the petitioners, they were continuously working in Gudiyari Godown of Food Corporationof India from 1981 to 1989 but from March 1989 no work was provided to them. According to the petitioners, ^ '-'^\. l^i ^ s y/ -2- ^^ their services were discontinued by the Management in March 1989 and subsequently from 26.9.1989 when the new contractor came, they Were not taken on work in spite of an application being made by them for the said purpose. Denying the case of the petitioners, it has been stated on behalf of the Management that since beginning the petitioners were the employees of the contractor and they were never employed by the Management. 5. After due appreciation of the evidence, the Labour Court by the impugned award, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were the employees of the contractor and as they have not been retrenched by the Management, they cannot claim any relief of regularization. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Labour Court has erred in law in ignoring the point that in respect of similarly situated persons in the Food Corporation of India on 1.11.1990 a notification was issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India prohibiting the contract labourers in 62 different depots and godowns of the Food Corporation of India but unfortunately in the case of District Durg, no such notification could be issued because of pendency of litigation. He submits that the Labour Court should have considered this aspect of the matter and as it has not been done, the matter should be remitted to the Labour Court for considering the same. hle submits that the Labour Court has failed to consider the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. 3275/1986 (FCI v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industhal Tribunal dated 23.3.1993. According to him, almost in identical situation of the same depot, High Court of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and therefore there was no occasion for the Labour Court to differ from the said view. 7. Replying to the argument of the petitioner, it is argued by learned Sr. counsel that the Labour Court has passed the impugned order exceeding its jurisdiction because the reference should not have been made by the State Government to the Labour Court in view of Sections 2-A and 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. He submits that initially the conciliation proceedings took place before the Assistant Labour Commissioner "2 — (Central) Raipur which however failed and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). According to the counsel for the respondents, the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur and Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Annexures R-1 and R-2 were never challenged before any forum and surpassing the same a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court contrary to the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. He submits that the petitioners have not brought to the notice of the Labour Court about the notification dated 1.11.1990 (Annexure P-5) and now at this stage they cannot take any advantage of the said notification. He submits that even if this notification was brought to the notice of the Labour Court, same would not be of any help to the petitioners as this notification was not in respect of Durg Depot. It is argued that judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh is also of no help to the petitioner because firstly even the said judgment was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court and secondly the facts of the said case and the present one are entirely different. He submits that in the case before Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh as is apparent from the order the labourers were initially employed by the contractor but subsequently they had worked with theCorporation but in the present case the evidence is to the contrary as it is not in dispute that the labourers were never directly employed by the Corporation. He referred to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned award where while discussing the evidence the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioners were the employees of the contractor and after March 1989 as there was no contractor they were not given any work. hle submits that in their evidence, the petitioners have admitted that they were the employees of the contractor. According to the respondents, the relationship of master and servant never existed between the petitioners and the Corporation and therefore the impugned award is just and proper and calls for no interference in this petition. He submits that not getting the work from the contractor does not amount to retrenchment from the Corporation. He submits that in view of the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi ^. -<r>- (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioners cannot claim their regularization. 8. Heardcounsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. From the evidence it is apparent that the petitioners were never employed by the Corporation but by the contractor. Thus it cannot be said that there was any relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the Corporation. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Further, failure of conciliation made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur was accepted by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and that order was never challenged by the petitioners before any competent Court. In view of this development, in fact the State Government could not have entertained the industrial dispute at all in view of the provisions of Sections 2-A and 10 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 10. Be that as it may, as there existed a finding against the petitioners in respect of relationship of master and servant and that the petitioners were never employed by the Corporation, this Court is of the considered view that the award of the Labour Court is not to be interfered with. This Court further finds no force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the Labour Court should have considered the notification dated 1.11.1990 and the order passed by the Division Bench ofthe Madhya Pradesh High Court as neither the order of the High Court nor the notification dated 1.11.1990 were placed before it, question of their consideration by the Labour Court does not arise. More so, the facts of the case decided by the Division Bench of the M.P. High Court and the present one are entirety different as the High Court of M.P. has clearly held that the petitioners in that case were employed first by the contractor and subsequently by the Corporation but in the case in hand the petitioners were the employees of the contractor alone. 11. In these circumstances and the law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka andothers v. Uma Devi (3) and others, the award dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Presiding Officer, -^T— Labour Court, Durg in ID Reference 34/95 rejecting the claim of the first party i.e. the petitioners for regularization is fully justified warranting no interference in this petition. 12. Petition thus being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. —- — -— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge