Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.10499 OF 2011
Food Corporation of India ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Gen. Secy, FCI India Employees
Union & Ors. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.10511 OF 2011
Food Corporation of India ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Workmen Through the
Convener & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and
order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.08.20
16:41:10 IST
Reason:
Chennai in Writ Appeal No.3383 & 3382 of 2003 whereby the
1
High Court dismissed the appeals filed by appellant herein.
2) In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in
these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra .
3) The appellant is a Government of India Undertaking known
as “Food Corporation of India” (hereinafter referred to as “the
FCI”). The appellant is engaged in the business of sale,
procurement, storage and distribution of food grains.
4) In order to carry out their business activities, which are
spread all over the country, the appellant has established its
Branch offices in every State. One such Branch office is at
Chennai (TN). The appellant has employed a large number of
employees to carry out its business operations through their
Chennai Branch office with which we are concerned in these
appeals.
5) In the year 1992, a dispute arose between the appellant
(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 contract labourers’
Society to work in the FCI to carry out their business operations
2
and secondly, whether these 955 employees are entitled to claim
regularization of their services as FCI employees.
6) The case of the appellant (FCI), in substance, was that
these (955) employees were/are never the employees of the FCI
but were/are the employees of a contract labourers’ Society
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 contract labourers’ Society
engaged by the FCI but not against the FCI.
7) On the other hand, the case of the workers’ Union 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 the FCI.
8) Since the aforementioned dispute could not be resolved
3
amicably between the appellant and the workers’ Union, the
Government of India by order dated 06.04.1992 referred the
said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for its
adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
9) The following reference was made for adjudication:
“Whether the 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 entitled to?”
10) Both 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 the workers’ Union
(respondents herein) is concerned, they adduced the evidence to
prove their case whereas the appellant (FCI) did not adduce any
evidence to prove their case despite affording them an
opportunity to adduce.
11) By awards dated 19.02.1997 & 29.07.1998, the Industrial
Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workers’ Union
4
and against the appellant. It was held that these 955 employees
are entitled to be regularized in the services of the FCI.
12) The appellant (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. The
appellant felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeals before the
Division Bench.
13) By 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 the FCI.
14) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in these
appeals.
15) 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
5
adduced by the Union so also the Single Judge and lastly, the
Division Bench.
16) It 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 the workers’ Union.
17) The writ Court then reexamined 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
6
appeals, suffer from any kind of perversity or illegality so as to
call for any interference by the High Court in writ petitions and
appeals.
18) We are inclined to affirm the concurrent findings because,
in our opinion, none of the findings though assailed in these
appeals call for any interference.
19) In our opinion, the very fact that the appellant (FCI) failed
to adduce any evidence to prove their case, the Industrial
Tribunal was justified in drawing adverse inference against
them. Indeed, nothing prevented the appellant from 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 appellant (FCI) that they were not afforded any opportunity
to adduce evidence and nor any attempt was made by the
appellant to adduce any evidence in the writ petitions or in the
intra court appeals and lastly even in these appeals to prove
their case.
20) That apart, in our opinion, the four findings of fact
7
recorded against the appellant by the Industrial Tribunal were
based on sufficient evidence adduced by the workers’ Union.
Indeed, these findings being concurrent in nature are binding
on this Court while hearing appeals under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
21) These 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 High Court.
22) In the light of the foregoing discussion, the reference was
rightly answered in favour of the workers’ Union.
23) It 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 of workers’ Union. The matter was then
taken to the High Court unsuccessfully and then carried to this
Court at the instance of the FCI in Civil Appeal No.7452 of 2008
and the appeal was dismissed on 20.07.2017 resulting in
upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal. It was stated
8
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 High
Court.
24) In 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 appellant (FCI) failed to make out
any case, which may call for any interference in the impugned
order.
25) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals fail and are
accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018
9
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1050210505 OF 2011
K.K. Suresh & Anr.Etc. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Food Corporation of India
& Ors. Etc. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and
order dated 28.06.2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.479 of 2002 and Writ Appeal
No.480 of 2002 whereby the High Court, by a common
judgment, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein.
Against the said order, the appellants filed review petitions
which were disposed of by the High Court by order dated
23.08.2007 in R.P. No.767 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No.479 of
10
2002 and R.P. No.768 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No.480 of 2002.
2)
In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in
these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra .
3) The appellants claiming to be working as clerical staff filed
writ petitions against the Food Corporation of India
FCI(Respondent 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, the appellants (petitioners
therein) claimed a relief of regularization of their services in the
set up of FCI as regular employees of the FCI.
4) Respondent No.1 (FCI) contested the writ petitions inter
alia on the ground that the appellants are not the employees of
the FCI and nor were they ever appointed by the FCI in their set
up but they (appellants) were appointed as clerical staff by one
CoOperative Society called “FCI Head Load workers Co
Operative Society”. It was, therefore, contended that in the
absence of any kind of relationship of the employer and the
employee between the appellants and the FCI, a relief of either
11
absorption or regularization in the services of the FCI does not
arise and nor any relief of this nature can be granted to the
appellants against the FCI.
5) The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
16.01.2002, dismissed the appellants’ writ petitions. The
appellants felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeals before the
Division Bench. 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 writ petitioners.
6) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in these
appeals.
7) In our considered opinion, the writ Court and the Division
Bench were right in dismissing the appellants’ writ petitions and
we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the
two Courts below.
8) In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any
12
evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them
and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed
that the appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load
Workers CoOperative Society but not by the FCI then obviously
the remedy of the appellants, if 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 the appellants were in the
employment of the said Society whereas the appellants were 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 the appellants.
9) So far as the reference made by the appellants to 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 the appellants for claiming relief
13
against the FCI.
10) It 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 the appellants and 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 the appellants.
11) In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no good ground
to take a different view than the one taken by the two Courts
below.
14
12) The appeals are thus found to be devoid of any merit. They
are accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018
15
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.10530 OF 2011
Food Corporation of India& Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Head Load Labour Congress
(Regn.No.336/85) & Anr. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.7961 OF 2014
Food Corporation of India& Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Thrissur Jilla General Mazdoor
Sangh FCI Unit represented by
Its President A.K. Suresh Kumar
& Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These two appeals namely Civil Appeal No.10530 of 2011
and Civil Appeal No.7961 of 2014 are directed against the final
16
judgment and order dated 15.02.2010 passed by High Court of
Kerela in Writ Appeal No.249 of 2009 which arose out of order
dated 22.09.2009 passed by Single Judge in O.P. No.14360 of
1999 and against another final order dated 20.03.2014 passed
by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1746 of 2013
which arose out of an order dated 04.09.2013 passed by Single
Judge in W. P. (C) No.14786 of 2013 respectively.
2) Though these appeals arise out of an order passed by the
High Court of Kerala, but we find that these appeals also involve
more or less the same point which we have dealt with in detail
in our order passed today (20.08.2018) in Civil Appeal No.10499
of 2011, Civil Appeal No.10511 of 2011
(Food Corporation of
India and Ors. vs. Gen. Secretary, FCI India Employees
Union and Ors.) which arose from the orders passed by the
High Court of Madras.
3) The present two appeals appeals are filed by the FCI
against the Workers’ Union of different branches, the only
difference being that the Civil Appeal No.10499 of 2011 and
Civil Appeal No.10511 of 2011 relate to employees working in
17
Chennai Branch Office of FCI, whereas the present appeals (C.A.
Nos.10530/2001 and 7961/2014) relate to employees working
in depots at West Hills Mavelikkare and Chelakkudy in State of
Kerala and, therefore, these appeals came to be decided by the
High Court of Kerala.
4) In short, the facts of the present two appeals are that the
writ petitions were filed by the workers’ Union against the
appellant (FCI) seeking a mandamus against the appellant (FCI)
directing them to implement the award (Ex.P1) passed by the
Industrial Tribunal, Chennai also in relation to the employees
working in Branch offices at Kerala named above.
5) The said award (Ex.P1) directed 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 award (Ex.P1) was
upheld by this Court and attained finality.
6) The High Court, by impugned order, allowed the writ
petitions filed by the workers’ Union (respondents herein) and
directed the FCI to give benefits of the said award to the
18
members of the workers’ Union (respondent herein), who are
working in two depots at Kerala finding no dissimilarity in two
set of these cases.
7) We also do not find any justifiable reason(s) to deny the
relief granted by the High Court to the writ petitioners
(respondents herein) insofar as these two appeals are
concerned. It is more so when no distinguishing features were
pointed out by the appellants on 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 the case.
8) Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case coupled with the judicial orders passed against the
appellant in 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.
19
9) In the light of the foregoing discussion, these appeals also
fail and are accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018
20