Case: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. GEN.SECY., FCI INDIA EMPLPYEES UNION

In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentionednt is a Government of India Undertaking known as(hereinafter referred to asnt is engaged in the business of sale, procurement, storage and distribution of foodIn order to carry out their business activities, which are spread all over the country, thehas established its Branch offices in every State. One such Branch office is at Chennai (TN). Thehas employed a large number of employees to carry out its business operations through their Chennai Branch office with which we are concerned in theseIn the year 1992, a dispute arose between the(FCI) and around 955 employees working in the Branch office at Chennai as to whether these 955 employees are the employees of the FCI or they are employed by the contractSociety to work in the FCI to carry out their business operations and secondly, whether these 955 employees are entitled to claim regularization of their services as FCIThe case of the(FCI), in substance, was that these (955) employees were/are never the employees of the FCI but were/are the employees of a contractSociety though working in the establishment of the FCI for doing their work. It was stated that due to this reason, they are not entitled to claim the status of the employees of the FCI and nor are they entitled to claim any regularization of their services in the set up of the FCI as the employees of the FCI. It was stated that their remedy, if any, would be against the contractSociety engaged by the FCI but not against theOn the other hand, the case of theUnion was that these 955 employees are, in fact, the employees of the FCI and being in their regular employment since inception have been discharging their duties regularly for doing the work of the FCI. It was contended that they are therefore entitled to claim the regularization of their services in the set up of theSince the aforementioned dispute could not be resolved amicably between theUnion, the Government of India by order dated 06.04.1992 referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for its adjudicationSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,The following reference was made forthe action of the management of Food Corporation of India is denying to regularize 955 contract labourers engaged in management of Food Corporation of India, Godown, Avadi through TVK Cooperative Society in respect of names as given in Annexure is justified ? If not, to what relief they are entitledBoth the parties submitted their statements in ID No. 39/1992 & I.D. 55/1993 in support of their respective stand before the Industrial Tribunal. So far as thets herein) is concerned, they adduced the evidence to prove their case whereas the(FCI) did not adduce any evidence to prove their case despite affording them an opportunity toBy awards dated 19.02.1997 & 29.07.1998, the Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of theUnion and against theIt was held that these 955 employees are entitled to be regularized in the services of thent (FCI) felt aggrieved and filed writ petitions before the High Court of Madras at Chennai. By order dated 07.08.2000, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Thefelt aggrieved and filed intra court appeals before the DivisionBy impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals and affirmed the order of the Single Judge and the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, which have given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave by then order to appreciate the short controversy involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentionedts claiming to be working as clerical staff filed writ petitions against the Food Corporation of India-No. 1 herein) in the Kerala High Court and prayed therein that their services be regularized on their respective posts on which they were working since 1997 in the set up of FCI. In other words, thes therein) claimed a relief of regularization of their services in the set up of FCI as regular employees of the(FCI) contested the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that theare not the employees of the FCI and nor were they ever appointed by the FCI in their set up but theywere appointed as clerical staff by one Co-Operative Society calledHead Load workers Co-. It was, therefore, contended that in the absence of any kind of relationship of the employer and the employee between theand the FCI, a relief of either absorption or regularization in the services of the FCI does not arise and nor any relief of this nature can be granted to theThe Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 16.01.2002, dismissed thewrit petitions. Thefelt aggrieved and filed intra court appeals before the DivisionBench. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by special leave by the unsuccessful writIn short, the facts of the present two appeals are that the writ petitions were filed by theUnion against the(FCI) seeking a mandamus against the(FCI) directing them to implement the awardpassed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai also in relation to the employees working in Branch offices at Kerala namedThe said awarddirected the FCI to give benefits of regularization of the workers in the services of the FCI consequent upon abolition of contract laborers system in relation to Branch office at Chennai. This awardwas upheld by this Court and attainedThe High Court, by impugned order, allowed the writ petitions filed by thets herein) and directed the FCI to give benefits of the said award to the members of thent herein), who are working in two depots at Kerala finding no dissimilarity in two set of these cases.

Reasoning:
We have perused the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, order of the Single Judge and the impugned order. Mere perusal of them would go to show that the Industrial Tribunal examined the question in right perspective on facts and the evidence adduced by the Union so also the Single Judge and lastly, the DivisionIt is evident that the Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence in its original jurisdiction, rightly concluded that firstly, the agreement with the contract labourer for doing the work had come to an end in 1991 and thereafter it was not renewed; Secondly, all the 955 workers were being paid wages directly by the FCI; Thirdly, the nature of work, which these workers were performing, was of a perennial nature in the set up of the FCI; Fourthly, all 955 workmen were performing their duties as permanent workers; and lastly, no evidence was adduced by the FCI in rebuttal to prove their case against thehe writ Court then re-examined the issues so also the Division Bench in the appeals with a view to find out as to whether the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are factually and legally sustainable or not. The High Court, by reasoned orders, passed in writ petitions and appeals affirmed the findings observing that none of the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, which were impugned in the writ petitions and appeals, suffer from any kind of perversity or illegality so as to call for any interference by the High Court in writ petitions andWe are inclined to affirm the concurrent findings because, in our opinion, none of the findings though assailed in these appeals call for anyIn our opinion, the very fact that the(FCI) failed to adduce any evidence to prove their case, the Industrial Tribunal was justified in drawing adverse inference against them. Indeed, nothing prevented thefrom adducing evidence to prove the real state of affairs prevailing in their set up relating to these workers. It was, however, not done by the FCI for the reasons best known to them. It was not the case of the(FCI) that they were not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence and nor any attempt was made by theto adduce any evidence in the writ petitions or in the intra court appeals and lastly even in these appeals to prove theirThat apart, in our opinion, the four findings of fact recorded against theby the Industrial Tribunal were based on sufficient evidence adduced by theUnion. Indeed, these findings being concurrent in nature are binding on this Court while hearing appealsArticle 136 of theThese findings, in our opinion, were equally relevant for answering the question referred to the Tribunal and further they did not suffer from any kind of perversity or illegality so as to call for any interference as rightly held by the HighIn the light of the foregoing discussion, the reference was rightly answered in favour of theIt was then brought to our notice that similar industrial reference alike the one in the present case was also made in relation to the FCI Branch at West Bengal and the said reference was answered in favour ofUnion. The matter was then taken to the High Court unsuccessfully and then carried to this Court at the instance of the FCI in Civil Appealof 2008 and the appeal was dismissed on 20.07.2017 resulting in upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal. It was stated that the FCI then implemented the award, as is clear from the notice on 05.10.2017, in favour of the concerned workers. Be that as it may, since we have upheld the impugned order in this case on the facts arising in the case at hand, we need not place reliance on any other matter, which was not before the HighIn the light of the foregoing discussion and examining the issues arising in these appeals from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the(FCI) failed to make out any case, which may call for any interference in the impugnedIn our considered opinion, the writ Court and the Division Bench were right in dismissing thewrit petitions and we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the two CourtsIn the first place, thefailed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed that thewere appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers Co-Operative Society but not by the FCI then obviously the remedy of theif at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that thewere in the employment of the said Society whereas thewere not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to theSo far as the reference made by theto one litigation decided by the Industrial Tribunal between one set of persons and the FCI regarding the status of such persons is concerned, in our view, it has no relevance for deciding this case and nor it, in any way, helps thefor claiming relief against theIt is for the simple reasons that first, the case at hand arose out of the writ petitions whereas the case relied on arose out of industrial reference decided by the Industrial Tribunal; Second, the facts involved in the case at hand clearly prove that there did not exist any kind of employee and employer relationship between theand the FCI; and lastly, there is no parity of any nature noticed on facts in the case at hand and the case relied on by theWe also do not find any justifiable reason(s) to deny the relief granted by the High Court to the writs herein) insofar as these two appeals are concerned. It is more so when no distinguishing features were pointed out by theon the facts or law, which may persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the High Court in the impugned order. What were pressed into service were only the technical issues arising in the case but we were not impressed by such issues. They did not go to the root of theHaving regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the judicial orders passed against thein relation to identical matters, we find no good ground to take any other view in the case than the one taken by Madras High Court in similar case and in the impugned orders.