IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2328 of 1999 Date of decision:21.07.2009 Mangat Singh and others ...Petitioners versus The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India ...Respondents and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate, with Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Arvind Seth, Advocate, for Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 2 and 5. None for respondents No.3, 4, 6 to 8. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners 1 to 4 claimed to have been enlisted as ancillary labourers by a Three Members Committee appointed by the Food Corporation of India, and alleged to have worked at Doraha depot for doing the work of unloading foodgrains bags from wagons/trucks and other transport vehicles during the time of procurement of grains by the Food Corporation of India. With a view to put an end to a contract system, a Bipartite Settlement was admittedly signed between FCI management and the representatives of FCI workers' union regarding Civil Writ Petition No.2328 of 1999 - 2 - extension of benefits to the workers working under direct payment (No work No pay) system in 1973 depots of Punjab region. All the petitioners had been given identification through a magistrate and they were entitled to be paid wages as stipulated in the Bipartite Settlement, if they did the work of loading and unloading. 2. The contention of the petitioners was that they had worked between the period 07.12.1995 to 28.02.1997, but they had not been paid the amounts as per the rates framed in Bipartite Settlement. The writ petition was filed therefore for a direction against the respondents through a mandamus to release the payments to the petitioners along with interest at 18% for the period of their actual engagement. 3. The statement had been filed in two sets: one by the officials of the Food Corporation and another by the members of the Three Members Committee. The contention made on behalf of the Food Corporation of India was that another worker like the petitioners had earlier filed a Writ Petition No.5815 of 1997 for a similar relief, and on a dispute relating to his actual engagement, the High Court dismissed the claim made by the workman. The attempt of the Food Corporation was therefore to deny that the petitioners had been engaged in work during the relevant period and that they were entitled to any payments. It was also their contention that none of the petitioners were entitled to any relief under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the rights were regulated only by the Bipartite Settlement referred to above. Civil Writ Petition No.2328 of 1999 - 3 - 4. The statement had also been filed on behalf of the workers' union and private respondents, who were said to be members of the Three Members Committee. They had also entered a contest denying that the four petitioners had ever worked and the Three Member Committee had already raised a bill for about 16 workers, all of whom have been paid their respective amounts due to them. They denied that the petitioners were entitled to any amounts. 5. In a matter for intervention under Article 226, there shall be no adjudication on a disputed question of fact. Having regard to the general denial by both Food Corporation of India as well as the Workers' Union including the Three Members Committee disputing that the petitioners ever worked as ancillary workers, the matter that has to be seen at the threshold is whether there is any prima facie proof available for the truth of the contentions raised by the petitioners and whether there is any grain of truth in the bare denials by the respondents about the contentions raised by the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred me to the undisputed documents that included the proceedings of the Food Corporation of India Workers' Union where they had supplied to the FCI a list of persons who would work as ancillary workers. The list (in Annexure P-1) makes references to the petitioners in serial Nos.9, 14, 20 and 24. The letter issued by the Union to the FCI on 11.09.1996 (Anneuxre P-2) furnishes the list of First Class Magistrate by Three Member Committee that included 30 ancillary workers for the Doraha Complex. It is seen in that list also the names of all the four Civil Writ Petition No.2328 of 1999 - 4 - petitioners mentioned in the same serial numbers referred to above. On 31.03.1997, in supercession of the earlier letters, the Union had sent a fresh list of 28 ancillary workers and there again we find the reference of Mangat Singh, Ajmer Singh and Jagdeep Singh in serial No. 22, 25 and 26 respectively. The name of the 4th petitioner Amarjit Kaur alone does not find a place in the fresh list given in 1997. Along with the replication filed by the petitioners to the written statement filed by the respondents, the petitioners filed the attendance register (Annexure P-8) and the bill prepared by the Union for securing the payments from the FCI. In the attendance register, we find the names of all the petitioners, but in the bill prepared for claiming the payment from the Food Corporation (Anneuxre P-9), all the petitioners' names find a place, but Amarjit Kaur's name has been struck off and the reasons for such scoring off is not explained before me either by the counsel for the petitioners or the respondents' counsel. The presence of all the petitioners except 4th petitioner and their engagement as workers are clearly expressed through documentary evidence. A bald statement that none of the petitioners ever worked with no explanation forthcoming from any of the respondents as to how the Union had given the list of names of the petitioners at all times and also included their names in the bill can not be accepted. Therefore, on a factual position it is undeniable that all the petitioners except the 4th petitioner worked during the period from 07.12.1995 to 28.02.1997. 7. The dismissal of a writ petition filed by some other workman claiming the same relief cannot also, in my opinion, avail to Civil Writ Petition No.2328 of 1999 - 5 - the respondents to deny the petitioners' entitlement. In that case, it was shown that the person by name Baldev Chand, who laid a claim could not establish why his name was not found in the final list dated 31.07.1997 and therefore, the Court found that there was nothing to show that the said person worked. In the present case, the names of all the petitioners find a place in the lists made on 12.08.1995 and 11.09.1996 as well as in the final list which was made on 31.03.1997. The final list dated 31.03.1997 does not contain the name of Amarjit Kaur, but it is for a subsequent period beyond the period when the petitioners are making the claim during the relevant period when the petitioners make a claim namely for 07.12.1995 to 28.02.1997. There is no denying the fact that all the petitioners worked and the dispute is with reference only to the scoring off the name of the 4th respondent in the bill that was prepared by the Union for claiming the wages for the workers. 8. The Bipartite Settlement makes clear references to the minimum guaranteed wage and the actual wage that would become payable that depended on the productivity of the workman relating to the transport of bags. The actual entitlement itself cannot be a matter of adjudication before this Court. However, the entitlement of all the petitioners except 4th petitioner is clearly made out. 9. Normally in matters of pure contractual obligations, this Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. However, when right to wages at a particular rate is clearly spelt out in a contract and the entitlement to such wages is borne through records which are undisputed, there shall be no justification to turn the poor workers who Civil Writ Petition No.2328 of 1999 - 6 - have done the work but who have been denied the wages for all this long period of time. I find that the dispute raised by the respondents is itself not bona fide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in LIC of India Versus Asha Goel-(2001) 2 SCC 160, that when the dispute is not bona fide and the entitlement is clearly made out, mandamus could be issued. Similarly, in Food Corporation of India Versus SEIL Ltd.-(2008) 3 SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held, it is no longer res integra that contractual disputes involving public law element are amenable to writ jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, I feel this is a fit case where the arms of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction shall come to the succour of the workmen and secure to them what they are entitled to. 10. All the respondents become jointly and severally liable for the claims and the claims made by the petitioners and the direction as sought for by the petitioners is hereby issued to the effect the Food Corporation of India through their functionaries shall release the payments at the rates specified in the Bipartite Settlement to the petitioners No.1 to 3 and their entitlement of the claims shall be put to no more scrutiny. As regards, the 4th petitioner, it shall be the duty of the official-respondents of the Food Corporation of India to verify the factual position whether the 4th petitioner Amarjit Kaur was actually working and if her name finds a place in the attendance register, an enquiry must be undertaken as to why in the bill prepared by the Union, her name had been removed and if such enquiry revealed that she had worked for the entire period and she had not been paid, the payments Civil Writ Petition No.2328 of 1999 - 7 - shall be released in her favour as well. This exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks and the amount found as due shall bear simple interest at 7.5% from 28.02.1997 till date. Having regard to the unjust denial of the wages, and a brazen false contention taken before this Court, the respondents 1, 2 and 5 on the one hand and the respondents 3, 4, 6 to 8, on the other shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioners in two sets. 11. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.07.2009 sanjeev