IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2491 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.14360/1999 Dated 22/09/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 --------------------------------- 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, MADRAS. BY ADV. M/S.VARGHESE & JACOB SRI.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VINOD JOSEPH P.J. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- 1. HEAD LOAD LABOUR CONGRESS, REG.NO.336/85, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VELLAKKADAVU, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), ERNAKULAM. ADV.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, R1 ADV. SHRI.JAMES KURIAN, CGC FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2491 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 15th February, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 and 3 in the writ petition are the appellants. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition, praying for a direction to the appellants to regularize the workmen attached to the godowns and depots of the Food Corporation of India (for short, 'FCI') in Kerala. In other words, the prayer was to implement Ext.P1 award, in relation to the godowns in Kerala. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following : A dispute arose between the management of the Food Corporation of India and their workmen, concerning the regularization of the workmen, under the contractors working under various depots of the FCI, in South India. The Central Government referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai and the said Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award. The operative portion of Ext.P1 reads as follows :- “In I.D.39/92, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above this Tribunal has already held that WA NO.2491/09 2 the respondent management should regulate the contract labourers engaged through a cooperative society and failure to regularise them is not justified. In this case also, the respondent management is not justified in continuing the practice of contract labour in operation, in spite of the various notifications issued by the appropriate Government. The result of abolition of contract labour is that such labour should be absorbed as the regular employees of the management. Therefore, the services of workmen employed in different food storage depots of the Food Corporation of India in South India where notifications have been issued prohibiting engagement of contract labour u/s.10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, are entitled to be regularized, from the date of notification concerning each depot. Award passed. No costs.” Though the godowns at Mavelikkara, Chalakkudy and West Hill, Kozhikode were not covered by the notifications issued by the Government under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act'), prohibiting engagement of contract labourers, at the time of passing Ext.P1 award, subsequently, it is common ground that notifications were issued under the said Act, in relation to those godowns also. In view of the above position, for implementing the award in relation to those godowns in Kerala, the Writ Petition was filed. 3. It is common ground that Ext.P1 award was challenged before the Madras High Court, by the appellants. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench dismissed the WA NO.2491/09 3 Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal. Now, the matter is pending before the Apex Court. It is also not in dispute that there is no stay order against Ext.P1 award, passed by the Apex Court. In view of the above facts, the point to be considered is whether the direction of the learned Single Judge to implement Ext.P1, in relation to the aforementioned three godowns in Kerala, was justified or not. 4. The main contention raised before the learned Judge was that since at the time of passing Ext.P1, no notification under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, prohibiting contract labour, in relation to those depots were in force, Ext.P1 award cannot be made applicable to those godowns. But, the learned Judge overruled the contentions. We think, the learned Judge has done it rightly, in view of Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows :- “18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.-- x x x x x x x x x (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of Section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National WA NO.2491/09 4 Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on x x x x x x x x x x (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.” In view of the above statutory provision, the award of the Industrial Tribunal would bind the workmen, who joined the services of the management, even after the passing of the award. 5. Further, we notice that the appellants have not challenged the notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 10(1) of the Act, prohibiting engagement of contract labour in the aforementioned three godowns. If that be so, they are bound to do the work departmentally, without engaging a contractor. In that context, without engaging fresh workmen, it is only just and proper that the existing workmen are engaged to do the work. That is the effect of Ext.P1 award and rightly, the learned Judge directed implementation of that award. We find no reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge. WA NO.2491/09 5 6. Sri.Jacob Varghese, the learned senior counsel, who appeared for the appellants, tried to point out various difficulties in doing the work departmentally. We think those matters are beside the point, as Ext.P1 is very much alive and kicking, in the absence of any stay order from the Apex Court. Further, the notifications under Section 10(1) of the aforementioned Act are also very much in force. In that context, the appellants are bound to do the work, in the aforementioned godowns in Kerala, departmentally. If that be so, it is only proper that they engage the existing workmen to do the work. We find no merit in the Writ Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2491 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 15th February, 2010.