IMPORTANT POINT
When workers continued in employment even after expiry of contract labour agreement, wages were paid directly by the employer, workers performing perennial nature of work as permanent workers and the employer not adducing any evidence in rebutting workers’ claim, held, workers are entitled to regularization in the services of the employer.

Headnote:Labour law – Employer-employee relationship – 995 casual labourers of FCI – Contract labour agreement coming to an end in 1991 and not renewed – Workers continued in employment – Wages paid directly by FCI – Workers performing perennial nature of work – Performing their duties as permanent workers – FCI not adducing any evidence in rebutting workers’ claim – Held, the forums below rightly deciding the issue in favour of workers. (Para 16)
       Facts of the case:
       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 and secondly, whether these 955 employees are entitled to claim regularization of their services as FCI employees.
       The Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workers’ Union and against the appellant. It was held that these 955 employees are entitled to be regularized in the services of the FCI.
       The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals and affirmed the order of the Single Judge and the awards of the Industrial Tribunal.
       Finding of the Court:
       Forums below have rightly decided the dispute in favour of the workers.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

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 Chennai in Writ Appeal No.3383 & 3382 of 2003 whereby the 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 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 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 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 appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document