Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Food Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
FCI Shramik Sangh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over workmen's termination leading to tribunal award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on workmen's claim for implementation of the award. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's overview of the inquiry procedures in enforcement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. exegesis on section 33c(3) and authority to appoint a commission. (Para 17 , 19 , 22 , 26) |
| 5. commission appointment upheld; no error in jurisdiction. (Para 28 , 30 , 32 , 34) |
| 6. final dismissal of the petition, confirming cgit's order. (Para 36 , 37) |
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 22nd February, 2022, passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in LCA 02/2019, under Section 33C(3) of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 ("the ID Act") read with Rule 63 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rule, 1957 ("the ID Rules").
2. A brief history of the dispute is necessary.
3. The services of 200 workmen, engaged with the Jwalapur Depot of the Food Corporation of India ("the FCI"), were discontinued. The workmen raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, by the Ministry of Labour
The High Court ruled that the CGIT has jurisdiction to appoint a commissioner for verifying workmen's entitlements to benefits under an award, clarifying that this falls within the scope of computing....
The principle of approbate and reprobate prevents a party from accepting benefits while simultaneously contesting the validity of the underlying order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
Claiming future salary payments under Section 34 is improper while a Section 33C(2) application regarding past dues is pending, as both grievances address the same issue of salary compliance.
The appropriate government should act only as an executory court and leave adjudication to the tribunal/labour court. The absence of a pre-determined right in favor of the workmen precluded the issua....
The court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) is limited to assessing victimization, not the detailed legality of a domestic inquiry.
The court emphasized the power of the tribunal to regulate its own procedure and the principle that technical and procedural lapses should not hinder substantial justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
