HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.Nos. 1812, 1740, 1738, 1739, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1759, 1761, 1765, 1768, 1773, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1813, 1814, 1816, 1827, 1828, 1830, 1876, 1881 and 1883 of 2003 Date: 20-07-2010 Between The Senior Manager, FCI and another ………… Appellants And B. Narasimha and another ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.Nos. 1812, 1740, 1738, 1739, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1759, 1761, 1765, 1768, 1773, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1813, 1814, 1816, 1827, 1828, 1830, 1876, 1881 and 1883 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Since common question arises in all these writ petitions, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. Heard Sri Meherchand Nori, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants-Corporation and Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents. 3. These Appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are at the instance of the unsuccessful petitioners who, by way of writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the common Award, dated 31-12-2001 in L.C.I.D.No.152 of 2001 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad. 4. The brief facts, which gave rise to these Appeals, are that the Appellants-Corporation used to award certain contracts for employing workers for their rice mills, named Modern Rice Mills established and commissioned in 1971. However, it appears that subsequently the rice mills were closed giving in its place to godowns. The Corporation used to engage workers like respondents herein through the private contractors including a society. Since their services were terminated consequent to the closure of the mill, an Industrial Dispute was raised by them and accordingly, the same was taken up before the Tribunal. The said claim was contested by the Appellants-Corporation on the ground that they are not the employees under the corporation nor there exist any relationship of employer- employee or management and worker and therefore, no relief can be granted and there is no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). 5. The Tribunal, after following an enquiry, ultimately disposed of the said I.Ds rejecting the claim of the contesting respondents herein holding that they did not establish the employer- employee relationship and therefore, they are not entitled to the relief as sought for. However, the Tribunal directed that the Corporation is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to them and thereafter, these persons’ services shall be taken as worker of January, 1977. Challenging these directions, this writ is filed. A learned single Judge of this Court, having taken into consideration the respective submissions, did not agree with any ground to warrant interference with the award and dismissed the writ. Hence the writ appeals. 6. Sri Meherchand Nori, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, mainly contended that having regard to the finding given by the Tribunal to the effect that there being no relationship of employer and employee, the question of violating the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act does not arise and the contesting respondents are not entitled for seniority from January, 1977 and further no preference can be sought for in their favour. Neither, the benefit under Section 25-H of the Act cannot be extended. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents sought for dismissal of the Appeals on the ground that the directions given by the Tribunal are equitable one and further since there is no challenge by them against the Award, consideration of their case for appointment is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Considering the submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that requires consideration is whether the directions given by the Tribunal while disposing of the I.Ds for considering the case of the respondents for appointment as casual labour in the like manner, is valid and sustainable? 9. Since there is no dispute with regard to the chequered events and the findings of fact given by the Tribunal to the effect that these respondents are not the workers under the Corporation directly, as there is no proof to that effect, the only thing, which requires is as to any indulgence can be shown in their favour. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration long service of the respondents through a society and the private contractors, gave the direction for employment of any casual labour later to the earlier and it should commensurate from January, 1977. 10. In the circumstances, we do not find any error with regard to the applicability of Section 25-H of the Act and therefore, we are not going into the same. Having regard to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and taking into account the principle laid down in the decision relied on by the learned single Judge in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS V. NATIONAL UNION WATERFRONT WORKERS AND OTHERS [1], we do not find any error in the direction given by the Tribunal, as confirmed by the learned single Judge. We do hold that since these workers are employed through an agency, they are sufficiently covered and protected. They cannot be treated as total aliens and need to be extended with benefits. 11. As far as the seniority is concerned, no doubt as long as the respondents are not in service, the question of claiming any seniority, more so when the earlier appointment stated to be not directly under the Corporation, they do not come for any consideration. Therefore, we make it clear that the question of giving any seniority from January, 1977 does not find support either in law or in merits. Accordingly, the direction to that effect stands set aside. 12. As far as the preference is concerned, it cannot be said that no such preference can need be given especially when the respondents have not become totally jobless and without any employment. Necessarily even on the principle of last come first go, it is only after attending to any erstwhile casual labourers, the case of the respondents need to be considered. We make it clear that of course, any consideration by the Corporation, with reference to these respondents will be subject to their fitness to the job, and they shall find place for such appointment whenever the Corporation engages casual labour. 13. Subject to the extent stated above, we do not find any merits in these Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-07-2010 YCR [1] (2001) 7 SCC 1