Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI * * * *
W.P. No. 8255 of 2018 Between:
Food Corporation of India Workers Union Bearing Regd.No.8219 Having Registered Office at 58/1 Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata 700 023, Represented by its Founder and General Secretary Mr.G.S.Jena Aged about 87 Years R/o.58/1 Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata.
.....Petitioner AND Food Corporation of India Statutory Body incorporated by the operation of Food Corporation of India Act 1964 Represented by its General Manager Having Office at
1620 Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001 India & others .....Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 18.06.2024 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments ? Yes/No
2. Whether copies of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No _____________________________________ VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J * HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA + W.P. No. 8255 of 2018 % 18.06.2024 Between:
# Food Corporation of India Workers Union Bearing Regd.No.8219 Having Registered Office at 58/1 Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata 700 023, Represented by its Founder and General Secretary Mr.G.S.Jena Aged about 87 Years R/o.58/1 Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata.
.....Petitioner AND $ Food Corporation of India Statutory Body incorporated by the operation of Food Corporation of India Act 1964 Represented by its General Manager Having Office at
1620 Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001 India & others .....Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arup Koushik Karavadi ^ Counsel for the Respondents 1&2 : Sri K.S.Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned standing counsel.
Counsel for the respondent No.3 : Sri J.UM.V.Prasad Dr. Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners in I.A.No.4 of 2023 < Gist :
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
1. PIL No.84/2014 Nagpur Bench, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 20.11.2015 para -30
2. WP(C) No35398/2016 & Batch dated 13.01.2017 High Court of Kerala.
3. WP No.18387/2018 & batch dated 15.04.2019 Madras High Court
4. WP(MD) No.25867 of 2023 and others dated 11.01.2024 Madras High Court.
5. 2023: AHC:237373-DB
6. (2007) 8 SCC 150 APHC010190852018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No: 8255/2018 Between:
Food Corporation Of India Workers Union, ...PETITIONER AND Food Corporation Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
2. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.8255 of 2018
ORDER:
1. The facts, as projected in the Writ Affidavit, in brief, are;
a. Petitioner is Food Corporation of India Workers‟ Union, which is a registered Trade Union filed the W.P. on behalf of 751 „Direct Payment System’ 1 workers engaged in the Respondent No.1 for handling foodgrains in their depots. Respondent No.3 entrusted the Respondent No.1 with a duty to procure food grains and carry out its movement and distribution throughout the country by loading and unloading, through skilled labour. Pursuant to the long-standing demand for absorption and permanence, a settlement was arrived between the Petitioner Union and the Respondent No.1 management, vide the Memorandum of Settlement dated 01.11.1994.
b. A circular dated 05.12.1994 was issued by the Respondent No.1 to recognize the rights of the handling labourers, commonly identified as DPS. These labourers are posted in various depots/godowns of respondent No.1 and at various railway sidings for the purpose of unloading food grain stock and stacking them at the siding godown before dispatch.
c. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued a circular dated 22.07.1996 to the Zonal Manager with certain conditions to improve the labour
relations in the institution. One of the conditions involved therein, claimed to have been implemented/proposed to be implemented was to transfer the surplus labourers from the DPS pool to another depot having shortfall to balance the situation.
d. Vide the circular dated 05.11.1997 to the South Zonal Manager, the Respondent No.1 placed on record the service conditions of the labourers engaged under DPS system and No Work-No Pay basis. Under these conditions, no enablement is given to the Respondent No.1 to transfer the DPS system labourers without reason and cause.
e. The DPS workers are deprived of the salary, leave etc., which are given to the departmental labour engaged by the respondent No.1, even when they discharge the similar work. In addition to the minimum wages as declared by the Central Government, the DPS workers are additionally paid certain incentive wages on piece rate depending on the number of bags that are loaded/unloaded/handled after a particular cut off mark. Basis of the piece-rate payment is notified and revised by the respondent No.1 from time to time. Without this additional earning, the DPS workers would not be able to make a decent living. The departmental workers have always been segregated in the posting matters so as to not create conflict with the additional earning being paid to the DPS workers.
f. To ventilate the grievance of differential treatment, a number of writ petitions were filed. Hon‟ble Apex Court, vide order dated
08.07.2003 granted liberty to the workmen to approach the National Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, vide an order dated 27.05.2004 an interim relief in the tune of additional payment of Rs.50/- per day was granted in addition to the existing rate. The matters are still pending.
g. The Nagpur Bench of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court suo moto took up a Public Interest Litigation2 concerning large scale payments made to the departmental workers of the Respondent No.1. Vide order dated 20.11.2015, the High Court made certain observations on the payments to such workers. In the S.L.P. filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, vide an order dated 31.07.2017, it was made clear that any order passed pursuant to the directions from the High Court‟s order dated 20.11.2015 could be challenged in appropriate proceedings before appropriate court and the adjudication thereupon has to be made uninfluenced by the observations in the High Court‟s order.
h. The respondent No.1 by circular dated 12.07.2016 issued internal guideline for „implementation of exemption notification dated 06.07.2016 under Section 31 of the Contract Labour (R&B) Act, 1970‟, purportedly to comply with the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, vide order dated 20.11.2015.
i. Thereafter, Resp
