IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL ON THE 2^nd OF AUGUST, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 20058 of 2015 Between:-

1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA A STATUTORY CORPORATION CONSTITUTED UNDER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ACT CHETAK BUILDING COMPLEX MAHARANA PRATAP NAGAR ZONE-II HABEEBGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DISTRICT MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VIKAS ASHA KENDRA 2722, NAPIER TOWN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.K.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI SHRI V.K.PANDEY, ADVOCATE & SHRI SANTOSH TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. PRESIDENT BHARTIYA KHADYA NIGAM MAZDOOR CONGRESS 29, VIJAY NAGAR CHHAPAR RAMPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DINESH PRASAD S/O SHRI JOTHURAM OCCUPATION: HANDLING MAZDOOR 29, VIJAY NAGAR, CHHAPAR RAMPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SECRETARY OF THE TRIBUNAL CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 1230, GOLE BAZAR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (CAVEATOR BY SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR SALUNKE, ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the Signature Not Verified SAN following:

This writ petition is filed by the Food Corporation of India being aggrieved of order Annexure P/1 dated 23.6.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/M/3/14 so also the award Annexure P/2 dated 5.8.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. CGIT/LC/M/1/03 raising two legal issues, namely, (1) whether the Tribunal has authority to review or recall its own order and (2) whether the claim petition is maintainable without making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In view of the aforesaid two legal issues raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the brief facts of the present case are required to be adverted to.

Respondent No.2 Dinesh Prasad was working as Handling Mazdoor in Depot/Godown of Food Corporation of India at Rampur, District Jabalpur since 1981. On 2.7.1991, he proceeded on leave due to illness. On 2.12.1995, the Food Corporation of India directed medical examination of the respondent No.2. On 3.1.1996, after medical examination of the respondent No.2, he resumed his duties. On 9.4.1996, the Food Corporation of India issued memo and restrained the respondent No.2 from working. The respondent No.2 preferred Writ Petition No.1729/1996 before the High Court seeking relief of quashment of memo dated 9.4.1996 with further direction to reinstate him in service. The High Court passed an order on 17.2.2003 annexed with this writ petition as Annexure P/3 and directed the respondent No.2 to approach the Labour Court within thirty days. The exact language used in the order is as Signature Not Verified SAN under "Consequently, the petitioner is directed to approach the Labour Court by filing appropriate petition before the Labour Court. In case the petitioner files appropriate petition before the Labour Court within thirty days from today, the same will be entertained and decided on merits and will not be defeated on the ground of limitation. The aforesaid petition will be decided by the Labour Court expeditiously as the petitioner is out of employment since last near about seven years". The respondent No.2 on 2.4.2003 had approached the R.L.C with reference but the R.L.C refused to admit the said application stating that its office is not a Labour Court and directions have been issued by the High Court to approach the Labour Court. In view of this undisputed position that the respondent No.2 had approached the R.L.C, which refused to admit his application. The respondent/Union had filed statement of claim before the Tribunal vide Annexure P/4. On 24.3.2005, the Food Corporation of India submitted its preliminary objection dated 22.12.2004 before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed reply to the preliminary objection on 17.10.2005. Vide order dated 11.8.2009, the preliminary obje