FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 16-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION 
A 
v. 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JULY 16, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-F-Retrenchment-
Workmen-Diange in conditions of servic<:-Payment through contracto1~ 
Direct payment system abolished-Effect on status of 464 workmen-Iden-
tification disputed-Directions issued. 
B 
c 
The first respondent, the Food Corporation of India, a statutory 
Corporation established for the purpose of trading in foodgrains and 
other food stuffs and for matters connected therewith, adopted different 
methods for employing labour for handling foodgrains. At Siliguri Depot 
in West Bengal State, there were 464 workmen designated as Handling D 
Majdoors. Initially a contractor was engaged by the Corporation for 
handling, storage and transit of foodgrains. Subsequently, the procedure 
of direct payment to labourers was followed by the Corporation. Sub-
sequently, the Corporation changed the method of payment. The direct 
payment system was superseded. The payment through contractor was E 
reintroduced. The 464 workmen already accepted as the workmen of the 
Corporation agitated through their Union that the change over was illegal 
and malacious. 
The question raised was whether these 464 persons represented by 
, the Union and attached to Siligurl Depot were the workmen of the Corpora-
F 
ti on and the change in .the conditions of service made by the Corporation 
was valid and legal. A three Member Bench of this Court held that since 
the introduction of the direct payment system, the workmen became the 
workmen of the Corporation and a direct master servant relationship came 
into existence. The action, if intended to be done was retrenchment, it was G 
contrary to the provisions of Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and 
such action would not alter, change or have any effect on the status of these 
464 workmen who had become the workmen of the Corporation. They 
continued to be the workmen employed by the Corporation. Subsequent to 
this judgment, the Tribunal passed an Award siating that the 464 workmen 
continued to be the workmen employed by the Corporation. The respondent H 
605 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996j SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Corporation agitated the matter again. A two-Member Bench of this Court 
directed the Tribunal to examine the identification of the 464 workmen 
including 203 persons in respect of whom there was no dispute from the 
management. The Tribunal passed the Award statingthat none of these 287 
workmen were ever employed by the Corporation and that they will not be 
B taken within the fold of 464 workmen. The Special Leave Petition was filed 
against this Award of the Tribunal. 
The Corporation did not challenge the list filed alongwith the written 
statement of the appellant. The Management never contested the fact that 
464 workmen, specified in the list were attached to Siliguri Depot at the 
C . relevant time. Out of 464 workmen, the Management had no dispute about 
203 persons. 
Disposing of the petitions, this Court 
HELD : The judgment of this Court in C.A. No. 1055(NL)/81 was 
D conclusive to show that 464 persons attached to "the list" were workmen of 
the Corporation entitled to the benefit given by the judgment. The only 
further 'luestion that fell for consideration as a result of the later order of 
remit in C.A. No. 155/90 was "the identity of the 464 workmen" and not 
whether they or any of them, had been in employment at the relevant time. 
E The Tribunal wholly misconceived the nature of the orders passed by this 
Court. in C.A. No. 1055(NL)/81 and C.A. No. 155/90 and in conducting a 
fresh appraisal as to whether all or any of the "464" workmen included in 
the list were in employment of the Corporation at the relevant time. The 
approach made by the Tribunal, even in the matter of marshalling or 
considering the matc1ial placed before it, seems to be wrong for the follow-
F ing reasons. The Tribunal was apparently of the view, that there should be 
uevidence
11 to prove the facts, as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is 
not so. The Tribunal is not a Court. There should be only material and not 
evidence as re'luired by the Evidence Act. A good many witnesses were 
examined by another member who was the predecessor of the member, who 
G delivered th2 final award. The Tribunal had stated that the evidence of the 
petitioner (workmen) was not "duly proved", "legally proved" o

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