IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization of services – Having allowed workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to Award merely because it made its compliance with Award conditional long ago.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Arising out of the very same judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkand High Court in L.P.A. No. 80 of 2019, these two appeals are amenable to a conjoined disposal.

3. By order dated 12.01.1996 issued under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, referred the industrial dispute raised by the Executive Staff Union of Food Corporation of India, espousing the cause of 21 casual workers, for adjudication. It was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad (hereinafter, ‘the Tribunal”), and taken on file as Reference No. 128 of 1996. The schedule of the reference set out the dispute for resolution as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna, retrenching the services of S/Sh. Sashi Shankar and 20 others (list enclosed) is justified and legal? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?’

4. One witness each was examined before the Tribunal by both sides. Exhibits M1 to M7 were marked by the management of Food Corporation of India (FCI) while Exhibits W1 to W12 were marked on behalf of the workmen. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal found that the 21 workmen in question were engaged as casual workers by the FCI at Patna and their retrenchment was void, as they were neither given notice nor paid compensation. Further, having found that an earlier Award directing reinstatement and regularization in service of casual workers was upheld by the High Court, the Tribunal opined that these 21 workmen should also be regularized in service as vacancies in Class IV posts were available. However, taking note of the fact that the workmen had not rendered services for a long time, the Tribunal restricted their entitlement to back wages. In consequence, the Tribunal passed Award dated 18.03.1997, holding that the action of the management of FCI in retrenching the services of these workmen was not justified and directed the management to reinstate them and regularize their services in Class-IV posts with effect from 10.05.1990, i.e., the date of their retrenchment, and to pay them 75% of their back wages, within a time frame.

5. Aggrieved by the said Award, the management of FCI filed CWJC No. 953 of 1998 (R) before the Jharkhand High Court. Interim stay of the Award was granted in the writ petition on 05.08.1999, subject to the FCI continuing to pay the full wages last drawn by the workmen. Thereupon, the management started paying each of them Rs. 507 per month, claiming that they were entitled only to minimum wages. Disputing this, the workmen instituted contempt proceedings in MJC Case No. 371 of 2000. This contempt case was disposed of on 12.05.2000, holding that if the management failed to comply with the condition in the stay order dated 05.08.1999 within two weeks, it would automatically stand vacated and the workmen would be entitled to take steps for implementation of the Award. The management thereupon issued Orders dated 10/17.11.2000, 24/26.11.2000 and 27.11.2000, implementing the Award. The workmen were absorbed in regular service and paid 75% of their back wages from 10.05.1990 up to 18.03.1997 and full wages, applicable to Class IV, for the period thereafter. This compliance was made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

6. However, a learned Judge of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed CWJC No. 953 of 1998 (R), vide order dated 01.11.2018. The learned Judge affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that the workmen concerned had worked in the FCI at Patna for 240 days in the preceding 12 months and were then stopped from doing so without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the learned Judge noted that the management did not co