FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusGEN. SECY. FCI INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

                         [2018] 9 S.C.R. 899                             899


                FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA                                A
                                  v.
     GEN. SECY. FCI INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 10499 of 2011)
                         AUGUST 20, 2018                                 B
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
        Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Regularization – Appellant-
Government undertaking employed large number of employees to
                                                                         C
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      D
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
                                                                         E
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.                F
      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          G
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              H
                                  899
900            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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.
D     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.
E
            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
F
      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
G     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
H     every State. One such Branch office is at Chennai (TN). The appellant
 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. GEN. SECY. FCI INDIA                             901
   EMPLOYEES UNION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

has employed a large number of employees to carry out its business             A
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            B
are employed by the contract labourers’ Society to work in the FCI to
carry out their business operations and secondly, whether these 955
employees are entitled to claim regularization of their services as FCI
employees.
       6. The case of the appellant (FCI), in substance, was that these        C
(955) employees were/are never the employees of the FCI but were/
are the employees of a contract labourers’ Society though working in
the establishment of the FCI for doing their work. It was stated that due
to this reason, they are not entitled to claim the status of the employees
of the FCI and nor are they entitled to claim any regularization of their
services in the set up of the FCI as the employees of the FCI. It was          D
stated that their remedy, if any, would be against the contract labourers’
Society engaged by the FCI but not against the FCI.
       7. On the other hand, the case of the workers’ Union was that
these 955 employees are, in fact, the employees of the FCI and being in
their regular employment since inception have been discharging their           E
duties regularly for doing the work of the FCI. It was contended that
they are therefore entitled to claim the regularization of their services in
the set up of the FCI.
      8. Since the aforementioned dispute could not be resolved
amicably between the appellant and the workers’ Union, the Government          F
of India by order dated 06.04.1992 referred the said dispute to the
Industrial Tribunal, Madras for its adjudication under Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
      9. The following reference was made for adjudication:
                                                                               G
        “Whether the action of the management of Food
        Corporation of India is denying to regularize 955 contract
        labourers engaged in management of Food Corporation
        of India, Godown, Avadi through TVK Cooperative Society
        in respect of names as given in Annexure is justified ? If
        not, to what relief they are entitled to?”                             H
902             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A           10. Both the parties submitted their statements in ID No. 39/1992
      & I.D. 55/1993 in support of their respective stand before the Industrial
      Tribunal. So far as the workers’ Union (respondents herein) is concerned,
      they adduced the evidence to prove their case whereas the appellant
      (FCI) did not adduce any evidence to prove their case despite affording
      them an opportunity to adduce.
B
             11. By awards dated 19.02.1997 & 29.07.1998, the Industrial
      Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workers’ Union and
      against the appellant. It was held that these 955 employees are entitled
      to be regularized in the services of the FCI.
C            12. The appellant (FCI) felt aggrieved and filed writ petitions before
      the High Court of Madras at Chennai. By order dated 07.08.2000, the
      Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the award passed
      by the Industrial Tribunal. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed intra
      court appeals before the Division Bench.
D           13. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ
      appeals and affirmed the order of the Single Judge and the awards of
      the Industrial Tribunal, which have given rise to filing of the present
      appeals by way of special leave by the FCI.
             14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
E     of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.
             15. We have perused the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, order
      of the Single Judge and the impugned order. Mere perusal of them would
      go to show that the Industrial Tribunal examined the question in right
      perspective on facts and the evidence adduced by the Union so also the
F     Single Judge and lastly, the Division Bench.
              16. It is evident that 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 FCI; Thirdly, the nature of work, which these
G
      workers were performing, was of a perennial nature in the set up of the
      FCI; Fourthly, all 955 workmen were performing their duties as
      permanent workers; and lastly, no evidence was adduced by the FCI in
      rebuttal to prove their case against the workers’ Union.

H
 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. GEN. SECY. FCI INDIA                             903
   EMPLOYEES UNION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

        17. The writ Court then re-examined the issues so also the Division    A
Bench in the appeals with a view to find out as to whether the findings
of the Industrial Tribunal are factually and legally sustainable or not. The
High Court, by reasoned orders, passed in writ petitions and appeals
affirmed the findings observing that none of the findings recorded by the
Industrial Tribunal, which were impugned in the writ petitions and appeals,
                                                                               B
suffer from any kind of perversity or illegality so as to call for any
interference by the High Court in writ petitions and appeals.
      18. We are inclined to affirm the concurrent findings because, in
our opinion, none of the findings though assailed in these appeals call for
any interference.
                                                                               C
       19. In our opinion, the very fact that the appellant (FCI) 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 FCI for the reasons best known to them. It            D
was not the case of the appellant (FCI) that they were not afforded any
opportunity to adduce evidence and nor any attempt was made by the
appellant to adduce any evidence in the writ petitions or in the intra court
appeals and lastly even in these appeals to prove their case.
      20. That apart, in our opinion, the four findings of fact recorded       E
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.
       21. These findings, in our opinion, were equally relevant for           F
answering the question referred to the Tribunal and further they did not
suffer from any kind of perversity or illegality so as to call for any
interference as rightly held by the High Court.
       22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the reference was
rightly answered in favour of the workers’ Union.                              G
      23. It was then brought to our notice that similar industrial
reference alike the one in the present case was also made in relation to
the FCI Branch at West Bengal and the said reference was answered in
favour of workers’ Union. The matter was then taken to the High Court
                                                                               H
904              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A     unsuccessfully and then carried to this Court at the instance of the FCI
      in Civil Appeal No.7452 of 2008 and the appeal was dismissed on
      20.07.2017 resulting in upholding the award of the Industrial Tribunal. It
      was stated that the FCI then implemented the award, as is clear from
      the notice on 05.10.2017, in favour of the concerned workers. B e
      that as it may, since we have upheld the impugned order in this case on
B
      the facts arising in the case at hand, we need not place reliance on any
      other matter, which was not before the High Court.
             24. In the light of the foregoing discussion and examining the issues
      arising in these appeals from all angles, we are of the considered opinion
      that the appellant (FCI) failed to make out any case, which may call for
C     any interference in the impugned order.
            25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals fail and are
      accordingly dismissed.
      Devika Gujral                                               Appeals dismissed.

D




E




F




G




H