TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute for resolution as under: 'Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna, retrenching the services of S/Sh. Sashi Shankar and 20 others (list enclosed) is justified and legal? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?' 4. One witness each was examined before the Tribunal by both sides. Exhibits M1 to M7 were marked by the management of Food Corporation of India (FCI) while Exhibits W1 to W12 were marked on behalf of the workmen. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal found that the 21 workmen in question were engaged as casual workers by the FCI at Patna and their retrenchment was void, as they were neither given notice nor paid compensation. Further, having found that an earlier Award directing reinstatement and regularization in service of casual workers was upheld by the High Court, the Tribunal opined that these 21 workmen should also be regularized in service as vacancies in Class IV posts were available. However, taking note of the fact that the workmen had not rendered services for a long time, the Tribunal restricted their entitlement to back wages. In consequence, the Tribunal passed Award dated 18.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in service, if his termination from service is without notice or compensation in lieu thereof, as provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and he would not be entitled to seek regularization in service. However, as the management had chosen to comply with the impugned Award, without abiding by the condition imposed in the interim order passed in the writ petition, and as the workmen concerned had been availing the benefit of the impugned Award for more than 18 years, the learned Judge opined that it would cause great hardship to them if the position was changed at that stage. The learned Judge, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Award in its entirety. 7. The matter was thereupon carried in appeal by the management before a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in LPA No. 80 of 2019. By judgment dated 17.12.2020, the Division Bench modified the order under appeal, by quashing the Award to the extent that it directed regularization of the services of the workmen. This modification was made on the ground that such relief could not be sustained when there was no term of regularization in the reference of the industrial dispute. The D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gular service for about 18 years and interference at that stage would be harsh upon them. On the other hand, the Division Bench held that once the Court comes to the conclusion that a wrong order was passed, it would be its sovereign duty to rectify such mistake rather than perpetuate the same. The Division Bench, however, did not consider the decisive features that had weighed with the learned Judge while upholding the Award of the Tribunal, viz., the fact that the management of FCI chose to fully implement the Award during the pendency of the writ petition and the fact that the workmen availed the benefit thereof for 18 years. In this regard, the Office Order dated 24/26.11.2000 issued by the management, in compliance with the Award, is of relevance. It reads as under: 'THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE: NORTH GANDHI MAIDAN (GAYA) Ref: No. Estt.10[C/L-Cum-Class-IV]/2000/1927 24/26.11.2000 OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of Award dated 18.03.1997 in I.D. Case No.128/96 by CGIT Dhanbad, interim Order dated 5.8.1999 passed in CWJC No.953/98[R] and subsequent order dated 12.05.2000 passed in MJC No. 371/2000 by the Hon'ble the High Court, Patna, Ranchi and in compli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sorbing' the said workmen in regular service. In effect, the management of FCI voluntarily chose to implement the Award in its totality, despite the conditional interim protection afforded to it in the writ petition. 13. The feeble plea of the management of FCI that it was compelled to comply with the Award, under the threat of contempt, cannot be accepted as the contempt proceedings in MJC Case No. 371 of 2000 were closed on 12.05.2000 itself, long prior to issuance of the orders of 'reinstatement' and 'absorption' in November, 2000. Having committed itself to this course of action on its own, albeit by making it subject to the result of the pending writ petition, the question that arises is whether the management of FCI can be permitted a volte-face at this late stage. Pertinently, there is no evidence of the management at least seeking expeditious disposal of the writ petition after complying with the Award, making it subject to the result thereof. In fact, the management merrily allowed the situation to continue for 18 long years, till the dismissal of the writ petition in November, 2018. 14. Given this factual scenario, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Jha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese workmen, who may have otherwise opted for employment opportunities elsewhere, altered their position and remained with the FCI. Having placed them in that position, it is no longer open to the management of FCI to seek to turn back the clock. Unfortunately, these crucial aspects were lost sight of by the Division Bench, while dealing with the management's appeal. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to alter the position obtaining for over two decades, by accepting the legally weighty but essentially pedantic view taken by the Division Bench, ignoring the factual position. 17. The appeal filed by the Executive Staff Union of FCI, on behalf of the workmen, is accordingly allowed and the judgment dated 17.12.2020 in LPA No. 80 of 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, is set aside. In consequence, the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the learned Judge in CWJC No. 953 of 1998 (R) and the Award dated 18.03.1997 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad, in Reference No.128 of 1996, are restored, subject to the observations in the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 366 of 2021 in SLP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|