A.P.RAVANI, J.U.MEHTA - (1.) The petitioner which is a Union of Employees of the Food Corporation of India has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia to hold that the employees of the petitioner-Union working in eleven depots of the Food Corporation situated in Gujarat State mentioned in the petition are employees of the Food Corporation of India and prayed to issue a suitable writ direction and/or order to give them necessary benefits of back wages and all other consequential benefits.
(2.) According to the petitioner respondent No. 1-Food Corporation of India has got about 11 depots with rail-siding viz. Sabarmati Kaligam Thrigarth Adalaj Ranip Viramgam Baroda Nadiad Palana Marida and Dasrathgaon. According to the petitioner the employees are doing the loading and unloading re-stacking breaking weighment and other incidental work including railway siding in connection with the food-grains received ant sent by the aforesaid eleven depots. This is the perennial type of work because this is one of the main objects of the Corporation to see that the food-grains are properly kept and despatched in a proper manner. According to the petitioner-Union about 1600 employees are working in the aforesaid eleven depots and they are working for last about 14 years. The said work is being done by the Corporation through various labour contractors but the contra- ctors are changed from time to time after the period of about two years or so. From 1-3-1985 as such there is no contractor though on paper the Corporation might have shown the names of some contractors. In fact the entire control and supervision was done directly by the Corporation qua its employees in the aforesaid eleven depots. It is also stated by the petitioner-Union that the contractors shown by the Corporation on record were not having any valid licence as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and therefore all these employees working in the eleven depots served through contractors who were not holding valid licence in the eye of law at least since 28 when the definition of the term appropriate Government under the Act was changed and therefore the employees of the petitioner-Union working at the aforesaid eleven depots be treated as the employees of the Corporation itself. According to the petitioner- Union the Corporation itself was not holding a valid Registration Certificate and also there was no valid licence of the contractors which was required in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is urged by the learned Advocate General that since the petitioner-Union made a demand for giving the employees the permanency benefits the Corporation closed eleven depots by way of illegal lock-out since March 1987 with the result that the food-grains worth crores of rupees were wasted without proper handling. According to the petitioner- Union thereafter conciliation proceedings were started wherein the petitioner-Union took the stand that after the change in the definition of term appropriate Government under the Act there is no contractor with the Corporation and in fact the payments have also been made directly by the Corporation to the employees as there was no contra- ctor having a valid licence at the relevant time as required under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It was therefore submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Union that there was no contractor in the eye of law at the relevant time for the last three years and if during that period the workers worked for the Corporation they were required to be treated as the employees of the Corporation. In view of the rival contentions of the employer and the employees the Conciliation Officer ultimately came to the conclusion that no amicable settlement could be brought about and the conciliation proceedings ended in failure. The petitioner has also annexed the failure report of the Conciliation Officer at Annexure `B to the petition. According to the petitioner with ulterior motive the just claim of the workers of the petitioner-Union at the aforesaid eleven depots is denied.
(3.) On the other hand the Corporation-respondent No. 1 herein infer alia contended that it had obtained valid Registration under the Act and the contractors also obtained a valid licence and hence the contract is valid and legal and the contract labour is not entitled to be treated as direct employees of the respondent-Corporation and thus it is contended that the employees are not entitled to claim any relief from the Corporation and they can approach the contractors for redressal of their grievances. It is further submitted by the respondents that the Corporation was holding the Certificate from the State Government of Gujarat and the appropriate Government was changed from State Government to Central Government. The said Certificate was obtained on 21-5-1987 from the competent authority appointed by the Central Government which has been issued in the name of District Manager Food Corporation of India Baroda. A similar Certificate of Registration was also obtained by the District Manager Food Corpo- ration of India Sabarmati Ahmedabad on 4-6-1987. The said Certificates have been annexed by the respondents at Annexure `I collectively. Therefore according to the respondents the aforesaid documents make it absolutely clear that the Certificates of Registration were obtained by the principal employer as required by the Act on the aforesaid dates. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that though the `appropriate Government was changed from State Government to Central Government on 28-1-1986 the Certificates of Registration from the appropriate authority were taken on 21-5-1987 and 4-6-1987 and in the said Certificates the names of the contractors whom the principal employer wanted to engage have also been mentioned. According to the respondents the contractors have also obtained licences after the change of the `appropriate Government from State Government to Central Government.;