IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 14360 of 1999(H) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HEAD LOAD LABOUR CONGRESS, REG. NO. 336/85, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VARKALA KAHAR, VELLAKADAVU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, (FCI) REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGIONAL LABOUR, COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), ERNAKULAM. 3. ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, MADRAS. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, FCI SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1-3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 14360 of 1999(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 29.7.98. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P.No.14360 of 1999 ................................................. Dated this the 22th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a union of employees of the Food Corporation of India. Their grievance in this writ petition is that the Food Corporation of India is not implementing Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu at Chennai. In that I.D. the issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the services of workmen employed in different Food Storage depots in Food Corporation of India in the South, where notifications have been issued prohibiting engagement of contract labourers under Section 10(i) of CL (R&A) Act are entitled to be regularised and if so, from which date?” 2. After adjudicating the dispute, the Tribunal held thus in Ext.P1 award: “In I.D. No. 39/92 following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above this Tribunal has already held that 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 inspite 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 O.P.No.14360 of 2009 -2- 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 regularised, from the date of notification concerning each depot. Award passed. No costs.” 3. The petitioner's grievance is that although the award applies to various places in Kerala also, the Food Corporation of India is not implementing the award at their Mavelikara, Chalakkudy and West Hill depots. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “a) a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take effective steps for implementing Exhibit P1. b) hold that in all godowns and depots of FCI, especially in Kerala, the workers should be regularised, and brought under direct payment system forthwith.” 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in which the contention taken is that although the original petition nos. 11416 of 1999 and 12416 of 1999 filed by the Food Corporation of India challenging Ext.P1 award and the writ appeals filed against the judgment in the original petitions were also dismissed by the Division Bench confirming the award, the Food Corporation of India has filed a special leave petition by the Supreme Court which is pending. Therefore according to the counsel for respondents 1 to 3, Ext.P1 award cannot be O.P.No.14360 of 2009 -3- implemented now. A further contention is also raised to the effect that as per Ext.P1 award, the direction was only to regularise the services of the employees in different food storage depots of the Food Corporation of India in south India where notifications have been issued prohibiting engagement of contract labour under Section 10(1) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of Mavelikara, Chalakkudy and West Hill notification under Section 10(1) of the said Act was published only on 12.11.2001. The contention is that Ext.P1 is applicable only to those depots in respect of which already there was a notification at the time of publication of Ext.P1 award and Food Corporation of India is not directed to implement Ext.P1 award in all depots in Kerala mentioned in Ext.P1 award. 5. I do not find any merit in both contentions. Food Corporation of India has no case that the Supreme Court has stayed the implementation of the award. As far as the 2nd contention is concerned, the direction is to regularise the services of workmen in those food search depots of Food Corporation of India in South India where notifications have been issued prohibiting the encroachment of contract Labour. Now that the O.P.No.14360 of 2009 -4- Food Corporation of India themselves admit that a notification was published on 12.11.2001, Ext.P1 award applies to the depots covered by that notification as well. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the petitioner are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this original petition. Accordingly, respondents are directed to see that Ext.P1 award is implemented in those depots of food corporation of India where notifications under S.10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act has been issued, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. After judgment was dictated as above, the counsel for the Food Corporation of India raises another contention to the effect that a direction for implementation of an award in an industrial dispute cannot be issued in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am not satisfied that Food Corporation of India can take such a contention as a state owned establishment. The Food Corporation of India should act as model employer and as such whenever the Industrial Tribunal passes an award they must be a model to other employers by implementing the award promptly and without delay. In so far as the Food Corporation of India is a state coming within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of O.P.No.14360 of 2009 -5- this court in respect of implementation of an award by an Industrial Tribunal also. I do not find any merit in that contention also. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs