The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by impleading the CWC as a party, and that the deprivation of benefits to the workers was arbitrary and not legally tenable.

U.B. Saha, J.

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 28.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 210 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellants herein upholding the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati ('the Tribunal') on 17.2.1998, notified on 14.10.1998 in Reference No. 10(C) of 1993 arising out of a dispute between the Management of the Food Corporation of India ('FCI') and the workmen, represented by the General Secretary, Food Corporation of India Workers' Union.

2. We have heard Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner-Appellants and Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. K. Deb, learned Counsel for the Respondent workmen as well as Mr. D.C. Roy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4.

3. The factual background necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal and the legal issues involved in this appeal are as under:

The 37 workers of the Respondent workmen, FCI Workers' Union though worked actually for the Appellant FCI and were entitled to wages at par with the direct payment system workers of the FCI, they were not paid their wages at par with those direct payment system workers by the Management of the Appellant FCI on the ground that they were not engaged by the Appellant FCI, but by the contractor working under the Central Warehousing Corporation ('CWC'), a Govt. of India undertaking, Respondent No. 4 herein for which the workmen raised their claim. As a dispute arose between the Management of the Appellant FCI and the Respondent workmen and conciliation having failed, by an order dated 27.10.1993, the Central Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudicating the following points under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act of 1947').

Whether the claim of wages of 37 workers w.e.f. 1.8.88 to 31.10.89 (15 months) at par with direct payment system workers of Food Corporation of India is Justified? If so, what relief the workers concerned are entitled to?

3a. Written statements were filed by the Appellants herein as well as the Respondent workmen. The case of the writ Petitioner-Appellants before the Tribunal, inter alia, was that the 37 workers were engaged at Hapania by the CWC for the work of loading, unloading, etc., at the Warehouses where the food grains of the Appellants were stored during the period 1.8.1988 to 31.10.1989 and, therefore, the said 37 workers were not entitled to wages at par with direct payment system workers of the Appellant FCI. On the other hand, the case of the Respondent workmen was that the 37 workers were actually the workers of the Appellant FCI and were entitled to wages at par with direct payment system workers of the Appellant FCI. As the Appellants in their written statement pleaded, inter alia, that the 37 workers were engaged by the CWC, the CWC filed a petition before the Tribunal for being impleaded as a party in the dispute, which was allowed by the Tribunal and the CWC also filed its written statement. After taking the evidences adduced by the respective parties in the dispute, the Tribunal by its award dated 17.2.1998, notified on 14.10.1998 held that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the Appellant FCI and Respondent workmen who had been working for loading and unloading of goods of the Appellant FCI at Hapania and they were legally entitled to have the benefits of wage rates of settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 effective from 1.8.1988 and deprivation of the benefits under the said settlement dated 7/9.11.1988 on the plea that they were not the workers of the Appellant FCI was arbitrary and not legally tenable in the eye of law and directed the Management of the Appellant FCI to pay the wages under the Direct Payment System of settlement of 1988 forthwith to the 37 workers.

3b. Being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the Appellants herein fil