The tribunal rightfully determined the employee's workman status and upheld its award for back wages based on justified findings, rejecting claims of res judicata and improper classification.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the common award dated 14.09.2017 in CR.No.30/1989 C/w. Complaint No.1/1989 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short, 'tribunal').

2. The petitioners-Food Corporation of India (for short, 'FCI') is a statutory Corporation constituted by the Government of India. The respondent-workman raised the industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bengaluru against the petitioners seeking cancellation of the transfer order of the respondent, who was the Regional Secretary of the FCI Employees Union. The Government of India made reference under Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') for adjudicating the issue. The issue raised before the tribunal was that -

"Whether the action of the management of the Food Corporation of India in transferring Shri K.V.Sreenivasan, Regional Secretary of FCI Employees Union, Karnataka Region, Karnataka Region to Tamil Nadu Region, is justified? If not, to what relief the said employee is entitled?"

2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was transferred from Bengaluru to Tuticorin subsequent to his promotion, but despite the said transfer, the respondent remained absent from duty from 31.01.1987 to 27.04.1989. After following due procedure of law, domestic enquiry was held against the respondent and based on the said enquiry report, the respondent was terminated from services of the petitioners-FCI.

2.2 The respondent challenged the said order of termination by way of complaint before the tribunal in complaint No.1/1989. The reference in CR.No.30/1989 and complaint No.1/1989 were clubbed and tried together.

2.3 To the claim petition filed by the respondent, the petitioners filed detailed objections denying the charges made about mala fide intentions of the FCI in transferring the respondent, contended that it was normal course of transfer for service exigencies and administrative reasons and sustained the order of transfer of respondent from Bengaluru to Tuticorin.

2.4 It is the case of petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings before the tribunal, the respondent filed a petition before the Disciplinary Authority that he is about to retire and the order of dismissal passed by the petitioners may be reconsidered. Taking into consideration the request of the respondent, the order of dismissal passed by the petitioners was converted into one of compulsory retirement. It is the further case of the petitioners that the tribunal, considering the changed circumstances of dismissal order being converted into one of compulsory retirement, did not find the need to proceed further with the reference and accordingly, rejected the same. Complaint No.1/1989 filed by the respondent was disposed of on 29.06.2001 with a direction to the petitioners-FCI to provide all monetary benefits to the respondent, if already not given.

2.5 This being the situation, the respondent filed a miscellaneous application in complaint No.1/1989 to recall the order dated 29.06.2001, which came to be allowed by an order dated 27.11.2002. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said order of revival was questioned by the petitioners in WP.Nos.39286 and 39287 of 2004. This Court, vide order dated 30.11.2007, rejected WP.No.39286/2004 and allowed WP.No.39287/2004 on the finding that the respondent is a workman and the tribunal has jurisdiction and further, a