Paripoornan, J. - (1.) Delay condoned. Special leave granted.
(2.) The appellant is the Food Corporation of India Workers Union claiming to be a registered Trade Union at Calcutta. The present proceedings are filed by its Secretary. The respondents are - (1) The Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, and (2) The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. This appeal is filed assailing the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (the 2nd respondent) dated 5-11-1993 in Reference No.13 of 1977 and published by the Central Government on 5-3-1994.
(3.) We heard counsel. This litigation has a chequered history. This is the third round in this Court. The first respondent, the Food Corporation of India, is a statutory Corporation established for the purpose of trading in foodgrains and other food stuffs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. It undertakes purchase, storage, movement, transport, distribution and sale of foodgrains and other food stuffs. The Corporation has set up its godowns/depots and other storage facilities. Labour is engaged at different stages in the various Depots for handling storage and transit of foodgrains and other food stuffs. The Corporation is functioning through various Offices and Depots throughout India. It seems that the Corporation adopted different methods at different places for employing labour for handling foodgrains. We are concerned in this case with one such Depot set up by the Corporation at Siliguri in West Bengal State. It is stated that at the relevant time, 464 workmen designated as Handling Mazdoors were attached to the said Depot. Initially, a Contractor was engaged by the Corporation for handling, storage and transit of foodgrains at Siliguri Depots. Subsequently, the procedure of direct payment to labourers was followed by the Corporation. The workmen at its Siligiru Depot were on strike in about January 1975, which was called off in March 1975. Thereafter, the Corporation changed the method of payment. The direct payment system was superseded. The payment through Contractor was reintroduced. The 464 workmen already accepted as the workmen of the Corporation agitated through their Union that the change-over was illegal and malicious. The question arose, whether the aforesaid 464 persons represented by the Union and attached to Siliguri Depot were the workmen of the Corporation and the change in the conditions of service made by the Corporation was valid and legal. This led to an industrial dispute. The matter came up finally before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1055 (NL)/81. By judgment dated 28-2-1985, a three-Member Bench of this Court examined the matter in great detail, and held thus: "Examining the system of direct payment as set out in the letter dated April 28, 1973 further amplified by the letter dated October 29, 1973, it becomes crystal clear that name of every workman engaged to handle foodgrains at Siliguri Depot will be mustered in a registered and his daily out-turn will be specified. The payment will be by piece rate as was in vogue at the time of the Contractor system. The bill will be prepared setting out the name of the workmen and the out-turn of each. The pay bill will be prepared setting out the names of the workmen and the out-turn of each. The pay bill will be prepared by the Depot staff who are regular employees of the Corporation. The payment will be made by the Corporation but will be distributed to each workman according to the piece rate by what are called Sardar/Mondal. The bills with the acquittance in original evidencing payment would be filed with the Corporation". "When the direct payment system was introduced, the intermediary Contractor disappeared from the picture. The work rendered by each workman had to be entered into a muster roll register. The Corporation will distribute the wages calculated on piece rate to each workman and each workman was required to be a party to the acquittance roll to be retained by the Corporation. The wages were distributed by Sardars/Mondals". (p. 97 Main Paperbook) ".......... the conclusion is inescapable 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". "if what was intended to be done was retrenchment, ex facie the action is contrary to the provisions of the Sec.25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Viewed from either angle, the action of introducing so as to displace the contract of service between the Corporation and the workmen would be illegal and invalid and ab initio void and such action would not alter, change or have any effect on the status of the aforementioned 464 workmen who had become the workmen of the Corporation". (pp. 101-102 Main Paperbook) "............... an award be made that the aforementioned 464 workmen who had become the workmen of the Corporation continued to be the workmen employed by the Corporation and shall be entitled to all the rights, liabilities, obligations and duties as prescribed for the workmen by the Corporation. A formal award to that effect shall be made by the Tribunal". (p. 107 Main Paperbook) (Emphasis supplied) "As it was stated before this Court that these workmen continued to be employed, undoubtedly under the Contractor since the illegal change was introduced, the question of paying back wages does not arise. The Tribunal, however, must satisfy itself before making the final award whether any workman was denied work and consequently wages". (pp. 107-108 Main Paperbook) (Emphasis supplied) (Pages 83 to 108 - Main Paperbook contain the judgment dated 28-2-1985);