The court affirmed the validity of the exemption notification permitting contract labour in the FCI, highlighting adherence to previous judicial rulings as a matter of legal discipline.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Sri. Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-Food Corporation of India.

2. By means of instant writ petition the petitioners sought for the following reliefs:-

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned exemption notification dated 06.07.2016, under section 31 of CL( R & A) Act, 1970 issued by FCI. (Subject matter of writ petitions (civil) no.7627 of 2016 & 7241/16 filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi).

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned guidelines dated 12.07.2016 issued by FCI- Respondent no.2 to its general managers for implementation of the aforesaid exemption notification vide letter no.IR-L/31 (10)/2004/vol. x dated 12.07.2016, issued by FCI;

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quashing the letter dated 30.10.2021 (Impugned Order) bearing no.IR-L/14(7)/2021 issued by Assistant General Manager (IR-L) respondent no.2.

iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the tender dated 18.02.2022 issued by the General Manager, FCI, Lucknow, Region, Respondent no.3, whereby inviting for appointment of Handling and Transport Contractors (HTC) at FSD Maduadih-10 deploy the contract labour at FCI FSD Maduadih-Uttar Pradesh (settlement depot).

v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus prohibiting the respondent nos.2 & 3 from transferring En-bloc 171 regular labours of FCI FSD Manduadih, Uttar Pradesh to FCI FSD Chandari-Uttar Pradesh.

vi) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Vii) Award the cost of present writ petition."

3. Before adverting on merits, it would be appropriate to refer to the background of the case. A news item appeared in the Times of India sometimes in 2014, wherein it was reported that a number of loaders working with the Food Corporation of India (here-in-after for the sake of brevity has been referred as "FCI") are earning around four lacs per month and also reflected abuse of government funds, inefficiency and reluctance on the part of the authorities to act sternly against such people, who were responsible for siphoning of Government funds. It was further reported that some of the loaders of the Corporation clandestinely engaged the services of other persons by paying paltry amount. It was further reported that all these things are done in connivance with the officers of the Food Corporation of India. On this news item, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance and treated the news item as PIL, which was numbered as PIL No.84 of 2014 ( Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India & others).

4. In that, suo moto during the course of hearing it was pointed out to the Court, that there was some notification prohibiting employment of contract labours, hence, the FCI continued to engage services of departmental labours.

5. The FCI had approached the Central Government under Section 31 of 1970 Act. It also pointed out the other difficulties like equal pay for equal work, reducing the size of the bag from 95 kg. to 50 kg. and when the incentive of the labours were reduced the labours went to th