Point of Law: Exemption notifications under Section 31 of the Act, which are temporary, issued for an emergent purpose, cannot dilute the rigour of a Section 10 notification.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

Preface:

1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the grievance which has impelled the petitioners to approach this Court is briefly this:

1.1. The petitioners, who are regular employees of respondent no. 2 i.e. the Food Corporation of India [hereafter referred to as “FCI”] apprehend being transferred en bloc from FCI Food Storage Depots [in short “FSDs”] located at Shakti Nagar and Mayapuri to depots located at Okhla and other locations.

1.2. It is the petitioners’ case that both depots i.e. FCI FSDs located at Shakti Nagar and Mayapuri, where they are presently located, have notifications issued qua them, under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation an Abolition) Act, 1970 [in short “CLRA Act”]. Thus, according to the petitioners, once the notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act was issued, the FCI could not have deployed contract labour in the aforementioned depots [i.e. FSD Shakti Nagar and FSD Mayapuri] and therefore, in pursuing this course, FCI has whittled down their legal rights, by attempting to redeploying/transferring them en bloc to another depot.

1.3. It is on account of this grievance that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the above-captioned writ petitions, to assail e-tender notice no. 4/2021 dated 01.03.2021 and e-tender notice no. 5/2021 dated 23.06.2021. Insofar as e-tender notice no. 4/2021 is concerned, it is assailed in W.P. (C) No. 5080/2021, while e-tender notice no. 5/2021 has been challenged in W.P. (C) No. 6060/2021.

2. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that after the matters were reserved, an affidavit dated 29.10.2021 was filed in W.P. (C) No. 6060/2021 on behalf of FCI, stating that e-tender notice no. 5/2021 dated 23.06.2021 had been cancelled on 12.10.2021; an aspect which was alluded to across the bar in the course of the hearing.

2.1 Given this position, we had, in the course of the hearing, tried to ascertain from the counsel appearing on behalf of FCI, as to whether FCI would be issuing a fresh tender for engaging contractual labour at FSD Mayapuri. Since we did not get a clear response, hearing in the concerned writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 6060/2021 was also continued, along with W.P. (C) No. 5080/2021.

3. It would be worthwhile to note, at this juncture, that FCI banks upon the notification dated 06.07.2016, issued by the appropriate government [respondent no. 1 i.e. the Government of India (GOI)] under Section 31 of the CLRA Act, to contend that the notifications issued under Section 10 of the very same Act, qua the depots covered under it have been rendered inefficacious. Thus, insofar as FSD Shakti Nagar is concerned, FCI contends that the prohibition against the engagement of contractual labour is no longer applicable. As regards FSD Mayapuri is concerned, FCI's stand is that notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act has not been issued by the appropriate government, and, therefore, the objection taken by the petitioners vis-a-vis FSD Shakti Nagar would not be applicable in the case of FSD Mayapuri.

3.1 It is, however, not disputed by FCI that since the notification dated 06.07.2016 had a limited span of two years, it was extended twice i.e. on 26.06.2018 and 25.06.2020.

3.2 It is also not disputed by FCI that notifications dated 06.07.2016 and 26.06.2018 are the subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No. 7627/2016, titled FCI Handling Workers Union vs. Union of India and W.P. (C) No. 7241/2016, titled Food Corporation of India Shramik Union vs. Union of India, which are pending adjudication before the learned single judge. The petitioners and FCI are at odds concerning the challenge to the notification dated 25.06.2020, whereby the duration of the initial notification dated 06.07.2016 was extended post 26.06.2018.

3.3 The record shows (something which is not disputed by FCI) that interim orders dated 13.09.2017 [“Time is sought on behalf of the respondents to file reply to the CM No. 32805/2017 which be filed within a period