Public sector undertakings must comply with government screening procedures before challenging labour awards.

Two workmen, Nagendra Rai and Hari Kishore Rai, sought regularization with the Food Corporation of India (FCI), relying on the FCI circular dated 6 May 1987.

The FCI maintained that they had worked only intermittently as casual labour—92 days and 58 days respectively—and had not been engaged directly by it after June 1985 or against sanctioned posts

The Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which awarded regularization.

The FCI challenged that award under Article 226.

The High Court also considered whether the FCI had followed the Government’s screening procedure for public-sector undertakings challenging industrial awards

1. Whether the FCI had shown compliance with the Government’s screening procedure, including the required prior approval, before filing the writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s award

2. Whether the Tribunal’s award directing regularization of the workmen warranted interference, having regard to their service and the FCI circular dated 6 May 1987

The Government instructions dated 8 August 1964 and 19 March 1999 required a public-sector undertaking seeking to challenge an industrial award to refer the matter to its administrative Ministry; the administrative Ministry was to consult the Law Ministry and the Ministry of Labour, with unresolved disagreement placed before the Committee of Economic Secretaries.

The Court also considered the FCI circular dated 6 May 1987, under which casual workers who had completed 90 days of service on or before 2 May 1986 were eligible for consideration for regularization against Class-IV posts.

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was invoked in connection with the alleged change in the mode of wage payment.

The Court found that the writ petition did not plead or provide material showing that the FCI had followed the screening procedure or obtained the requisite approval before filing its challenge.

It further noted that the workmen had served for 92 and 58 days respectively during the relevant period and referred to the 1987 circular’s 90-day criterion.

The Court also accepted the position that routing wages through a transport contractor, without notice or consent, violated Section 9A, and concluded that the Tribunal had considered the relevant legal aspects in making its award.

On these grounds, it found no basis to interfere.

It directed the FCI to implement the award within three months of receiving or being presented with a copy of the order.