- (1.) The Food Corporation of India (Corporation) has approached this Court assailing the order dated 29 May 2015 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, allowing the representation filed by the first respondent, F.C.I. Mazdoor Union (Union) holding that the workers are genuine and entitled to the benefit under the "No Work No Pay" scheme/policy introduced by the Corporation. The controversy that has arisen is with regard to the identification of contract labour who were earlier employed through private contractors in the depots of the Corporation prior to the notification dated 23 April 2010 issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour in exercise of power under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (The Contract Labour Act, 1970). Upon notification, the Corporation incorporated "No Work No Pay" scheme providing guidelines to identify labourers working in the depots of the Corporation. Pursuant thereof, a Committee was constituted to identify the labourers to be included in the scheme. The Committee identified 222 labourers in respect of Roza Depot, District Shahjahanpur. The aggrieved workers who were left out filed several petitions before this Court and in one such petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34027 of 2013, an interim order was passed on 19 June 2013. Relevant portion of the order is extracted: "The petitioners are at liberty to file a representation within a week before the competent authority and if the work is available the petitioners shall be engaged on the same status on which they were working on the date when the impugned order was passed."
(2.) In order to implement the aforementioned interim order, the labourers of Roza Depot, Shahjahanpur filed contempt petition being Contempt Application No.4366 of 2013. The labourers instead of approaching the competent authority of the Corporation, approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, by filing representation contending that they are genuine contract labourers but have not been given benefit of the scheme. During pendency of the representation, the labour union approached this Court for expeditious disposal of their representation. This Court in appeal being Special Appeal No.943 of 2014 by order dated 15 October 2015 directed for expediting the hearing in accordance with law. The order is extracted: "The appellants moved the respondent no. 4, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Kanpur for giving benefit of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Such application was filed in April, 2014, on which notices were issued. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 52002 of 2014 with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 to forthwith take a decision in the case filed by the appellants. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by order dated 24.9.2014 primarily on the ground that the writ petitioners - appellants are unable to show as to what delay has been caused by the respondents in deciding the matter. Challenging the said order of the writ Court this appeal has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents no. 1 and 4 and Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and have perused the record. Neither in the writ petition nor in the appeal the appellants have filed any application to show that they have approached the respondent no. 4 for expediting the hearing of the case. For issuance of a writ of mandamus it is necessary that the party concerned should first approach the authority and in case, within a reasonable time, the authority does not take suitable action on the same then alone such a writ can be issue. In the present case since prior to the filing of the writ petition the appellants have not approached the authority concerned for expediting the hearing of the case, we are of the view that no such relief for expediting the hearing before the respondent no. 4 was required to be granted. Without interfering with the order of dismissal of the writ petition, we dispose of this appeal with the observation that in case the appellants approach the respondent no. 4, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Kanpur alongwith a certified copy of this order for expediting the hearing of the case, such application shall be looked into by the respondent no. 4, in accordance with law and on the facts of the case pending before the respondent no. 4."
(3.) Pursuant thereof, the first respondent framed two issues. (a) Whether the set of workers have worked in the notified depots of Food Corporation of India and are entitled to get the benefit of Notification issued under Sec. 10(1) of CL (R & A) Act, 1970; (b) Whether claim of the workers are genuine or not.;