FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus GEN. SECY. FCI INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 20-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
899
899
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 899
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
v.
GEN. SECY. FCI INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10499 of  2011)
AUGUST 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:  Regularization – Appellant-
Government undertaking employed large number of employees to
carry out its business operations – A dispute arose as to whether
these 955 employees were employees of the said undertaking or
they were employed by the contract labourers society to work in the
undertaking to carry out their business operations and whether
they were entitled to claim regularization of their services as its
employees – Held: The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence in its
original jurisdiction, rightly concluded that firstly, the agreement
with the contract labourer for doing the work had come to an end
in 1991 and thereafter it was not renewed – Secondly, all the 955
workers were being paid wages directly by the appellant – Thirdly,
the nature of work, which these workers were performing, was of a
perennial nature in the set up of the appellant – Fourthly, all 955
workmen were performing their duties as permanent workers; and
lastly, no evidence was adduced by the appellant in rebuttal to prove
their case against the workers’ Union – High Court was right in
affirming the findings recorded by the Tribunal – Interference with
the concurrent findings of the two courts not called for.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  The very fact that the appellant failed to adduce
any evidence to prove their case, the Industrial Tribunal was
justified in drawing adverse inference against them. Indeed,
nothing prevented the appellant from adducing evidence to prove
the real state of affairs prevailing in their set up relating to these
workers. It was, however, not done by the appellant for the
reasons best known to them. It was not the case of the appellant
that they were not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence
and nor any attempt was made by the appellant to adduce any
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
evidence in the writ petitions or in the intra court appeals and
lastly even in these appeals to prove their case. That apart, the
four findings of fact recorded against the appellant by the Industrial
Tribunal were based on sufficient evidence adduced by the
workers’ Union. Indeed, these findings being concurrent in nature
are binding on this Court while hearing appeals under Article
136 of the Constitution. [Paras 19, 20] [903-C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10499
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2006 of the High Court
of  Madras at Chennai in Writ Appeal No. 3383 of 2003.
WITH
C.A. No.  10511 of 2011
C. U. Singh, S. R. Singh, Brijender Chahar, Sr. Advs., Y.
Prabhakara Rao, J. P. Mishra, P. V. Dinesh, R. R. Kumar, Atulesh Kumar,
Swetank Shantanu, Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. Pooja Jha, Ronak Karanpuria,
Sumit Sharma, Nagendra Singh, R. Prakash, Ms. Nandita Jha, Ajit
Pudussery, K. Vijayan, Ajeet Singh Verma, C. Paramasivam, Rakesh
K. Sharma, V. K. Sidharthan, Ms. Sridevi V. S., Sudarsh Menon, Bharat
Sangal, Ms. Malini Poduval, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.  1. These appeals are directed
against the final judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the
High Court of Madras at Chennai in Writ Appeal No.3383 & 3382 of
2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by appellant
herein.
2.
In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in these
appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra.
3.
The appellant is a Government of India Undertaking known
as “Food Corporation of India” (hereinafter referred to as “the FCI”).
The appellant is engaged in the business of sale, procurement, storage
and distribution of food grains.
4.
In order to carry out their business activities, which are spread
all over the country, the appellant has established its Branch offices in
every State. One such Branch office is at Chennai (TN). The appellant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
901
has employed a large number of employees to carry out its business
operations through their Chennai Branch office with which we are
concerned in these appeals.
5. In the year 1992, a dispute arose between the appellant (FCI)
and around 955 employees working in the Branch office at Chennai as
to whether these 955 employees are the employees of the FCI or they
are employed by the con

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.