Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Food Corporation of India, through its General Manager (Region), Amit Bhushan son of Shri U.K. Asthana – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Sharma, Son of Haridwar Sharma – Respondent
W.P. (L) No. 2617 of 2017
Decided on : 01-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical factual background of employment and litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability of complaint under section 33a. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. statutory scope of section 33 and section 33a. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. requirement of nexus for section 33(1) contravention. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. equitable considerations for long-term de facto permanent employees. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. quashing of tribunal award due to lack of jurisdictional contravention. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner Food Corporation of India has filed this Writ Petition against the award/order dated 14.01.16 passed by the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Complaint Case No. 06/2014 setting aside the decision dated 27.09.13 by which it was decided not to regularize the service of the Respondents/Workmen and also setting aside decision to terminate their service from Food Corporation of India.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Food Corporation of India is a Government Corporation constituted under the Food Corporations Act, 1964 and is owned and controlled entirely by the Government of India. The Respondents/Workmen in this case were initially engaged as casual daily wage workers in Food Storage Depot, Koderma and were working since March 1984.
The Respondents were disengaged/retrenched without compliance with the requirement of payment of compensation provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They raised an industrial dispute against the action of retrenchment which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad and registered as Reference Case No. 94/1995. This reference was decided in favour of the Respondents by an award dated 17.09.1996 with a direction for reinstatement in service and the Food Corporation of India was also directed to regularize their service with effect from 1.09.1985 without any back wages.
4. The record further reveals that this award passed in Reference 94/1995 was challenged in C.W.J.C No. 559/1997(R) before the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) and the Writ Petition was allowed in part by order dated 04.11.1997 modifying the award by setting aside the direction to regularize as it was beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Petitioner-Management was directed to consider the case of the concerned workman for regularization of service.
Both sides moved before the Division Bench by preferring appeals against this order of the Single Judge. The Corporation’s appeal was registered as LPA No. 597/1997 (R) and was confined to the order of reinstatement. The Respondents’ appeal was registered as LPA No. 547/1997 (R) and was against the direction for setting aside direction for regularization.
The Petitioner could not obtain stay at appellate stage which was turned down by order dated 06.04.1998 in LPA No. 597/1999(R) and it therefore, approached Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No. 12393 of 1998 and by order dated 04.01.1999 the Management was directed to first reinstate all 24 casual employees.
On 12.02.1999, The District Manager, FCI, Hazaribagh issued an order of reinstatement in service. The case was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 15.02.1999 restoring the direction that the Management would take decision regarding regularisation of service of these workmen.
The appeal of the Petitioner-FCI before the High Court being LPA No. 579/1997(R) was dismissed on 11.05.2010. The other appeal, LPA 547/1997 (R) was not pressed by the workmen.
5. Pursuant thereto; the District Manager, FCI, Hazaribagh modified the reinstatement order by reinstating all 24 casual workmen on the post of “watchman” with effect from 01.9.1985. The result is that on and after 01.07.2000 all these 24 casual workers were given permanent status and post of “Watchman” which is a sanctioned Category-D post in Food Corporation of
AI
The Industrial Tribunal can regularize services of workmen if unfair labor practices are established, even in the absence of sanctioned posts.
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 canvas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of an employee's services must comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, including notice and compensation re....
Termination of employment deemed punitive requires prior permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was not obtained, rendering the termination illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularisation of service could only be from the date of the petitioners' appointment in regular service i.e., 03.10.2012, and not from th....
The Industrial Tribunal must respect procedural compliance and the distinction between discharge connected to ongoing disputes and removal for misconduct, as outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Labour Law – Reinstate the workmen - If legal position had changed, CPWD, being a Government Agency, could not have acted in a manner which is contrary to said order - Correct way of proceeding for C....
Workers under no work no pay must be treated equally to regularized workers, ensuring consistent application of Tribunal awards.
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
