REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.10499 OF 2011

Food Corporation of India          ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Gen. Secy, FCI India Employees Union  & Ors.                …Respondent(s)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL No.10511 OF 2011

Food Corporation of India          ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The Workmen Through the  Convener & Anr.      …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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

1

High Court dismissed the appeals filed by appellant 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

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 every  State.  One such  Branch office is at

Chennai  (TN).  The appellant has employed a  large number of

employees to  carry  out its  business  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 are employed by the contract labourers’

Society to work in the FCI to carry out their business operations

2

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 (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 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 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

3

amicably  between the  appellant  and the  workers’  Union, the

Government  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:

“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?”

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.

11) By awards dated 19.02.1997 & 29.07.1998, the Industrial

Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workers’ Union

4

and against the appellant. It was held that these 955 employees

are entitled to be regularized in the services of the FCI.  

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.  

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  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

5

adduced by the Union so also the 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 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.

17) The writ  Court then re­examined  the issues  so also the

Division 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

6

appeals, 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.

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 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

7

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 136 of  the

Constitution.  

21) These  findings, in our opinion,  were equally  relevant  for

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.

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 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

8

that the FCI then implemented the award, as is clear from the

notice on 05.10.2017, in favour of the concerned workers.  Be

that as it may, since we have upheld the impugned order in this

case on 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 any interference in the impugned

order.

25) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals fail and are

accordingly dismissed.  

                                              ………...................................J.

 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                            

          …...……..................................J.

        [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

New Delhi; August 20, 2018  

9

         REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10502­10505 OF 2011

K.K. Suresh &  Anr.Etc.        ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Food Corporation of India  & Ors. Etc.          …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and

order dated 28.06.2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala at

Ernakulam in  Writ Appeal  No.479  of 2002 and  Writ Appeal

No.480 of 2002 whereby the High Court, by a common

judgment, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein.

Against the said order, the appellants filed review petitions

which were disposed of by the High Court by order dated

23.08.2007  in R.P.  No.767 of  2007  in Writ  Appeal  No.479 of

10

2002 and R.P. No.768 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No.480 of 2002.  

2) In  order to  appreciate the short controversy involved in

these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra.

3) The appellants claiming to be working as clerical staff filed

writ petitions against the Food Corporation of India­

FCI(Respondent  No.  1  herein) in the  Kerala  High  Court and

prayed therein that their services be regularized on their

respective posts on which they were working since 1997 in the

set up of FCI.   In other words, the appellants (petitioners

therein) claimed a relief of regularization of their services in the

set up of FCI as regular employees of the FCI.

4) Respondent  No.1 (FCI) contested the  writ  petitions  inter

alia on the ground that the appellants are not the employees of

the FCI and nor were they ever appointed by the FCI in their set

up but they (appellants) were appointed as clerical staff by one

Co­Operative Society called “FCI Head Load workers Co­

Operative Society”. It was, therefore, contended that in the

absence  of  any  kind  of relationship  of the  employer  and  the

employee between the appellants and the FCI, a relief of either

11

absorption or regularization in the services of the FCI does not

arise and nor any relief  of  this nature can be granted to the

appellants against the FCI.

5) The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated

16.01.2002, dismissed the appellants’ writ petitions. The

appellants felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeals before the

Division Bench. By impugned order, the Division Bench

dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order of the Single

Judge, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by special

leave by the unsuccessful writ petitioners.     

6) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal  of the record of the  case,  we find  no  merit in these

appeals.

7) In our considered opinion, the writ Court and the Division

Bench were right in dismissing the appellants’ writ petitions and

we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the

two Courts below.

8) In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any

12

evidence to prove existence of  any relationship between them

and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed

that the appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load

Workers Co­Operative Society but not by the FCI then obviously

the remedy of the appellants, if at all, in relation to their any

service dispute was against the said Society being their

employer but not against the FCI;   Third, the FCI was able to

prove with the aid of evidence that the appellants were in the

employment of the said Society whereas the appellants were not

able to  prove  with the  aid  of  any  documents that they  were

appointed by the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed

to be in the employment of the FCI except to make an averment

in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not

sufficient to grant any relief to the appellants.

9) So far as the reference  made  by the appellants to one

litigation decided by the Industrial Tribunal between one set of

persons and the FCI regarding the status of  such persons  is

concerned, in our view, it has no relevance for deciding this case

and nor it, in any way, helps the appellants for claiming relief

13

against the FCI.  

10) It is for the  simple  reasons  that first, the  case at  hand

arose out of the writ petitions whereas the case relied on arose

out of  industrial reference decided by the Industrial Tribunal;

Second, the facts involved in the case at hand clearly prove that

there did not exist any kind of employee and employer

relationship  between the  appellants and the  FCI; and lastly,

there is no parity of any nature noticed on facts in the case at

hand and the case relied on by the appellants.

11) In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no good ground

to take a different view than the one taken by the two Courts

below.

14

12) The appeals are thus found to be devoid of any merit.  They

are accordingly dismissed.    

                  ………...................................J.

             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                      

 …...……..................................J.                          [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

New Delhi; August 20, 2018  

15

         REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.10530 OF 2011

Food Corporation of India& Anr.        ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Head Load Labour Congress (Regn.No.336/85) & Anr.  …Respondent(s)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL No.7961 OF 2014

Food Corporation of India& Ors.        ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Thrissur Jilla General Mazdoor Sangh FCI Unit represented by Its President A.K. Suresh Kumar &  Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) These two appeals namely Civil Appeal No.10530 of 2011

and Civil Appeal No.7961 of 2014 are directed against the final

16

judgment and order dated 15.02.2010 passed by High Court of

Kerela in Writ Appeal No.249 of 2009 which arose out of order

dated 22.09.2009 passed by Single Judge in O.P. No.14360 of

1999 and against another final order dated 20.03.2014 passed

by the High Court of  Kerala  in Writ Appeal No.1746 of  2013

which arose out of an order dated 04.09.2013 passed by Single

Judge in W. P. (C) No.14786 of 2013 respectively.  

2) Though these appeals arise out of an order passed by the

High Court of Kerala, but we find that these appeals also involve

more or less the same point which we have dealt with in detail

in our order passed today (20.08.2018) in Civil Appeal No.10499

of 2011, Civil Appeal No.10511 of 2011  (Food Corporation of

India and Ors.  vs.  Gen. Secretary, FCI India Employees

Union and Ors.)  which arose  from the orders passed by  the

High Court of Madras.  

3) The present two appeals appeals are filed by the FCI

against the Workers’ Union of different branches, the only

difference  being that the  Civil  Appeal  No.10499 of  2011 and

Civil Appeal No.10511 of 2011 relate to employees working in

17

Chennai Branch Office of FCI, whereas the present appeals (C.A.

Nos.10530/2001 and 7961/2014) relate to employees working

in depots at West Hills Mavelikkare and Chelakkudy in State of

Kerala and, therefore, these appeals came to be decided by the

High Court of Kerala.

4) In short, the facts of the present two appeals are that the

writ petitions were filed by the workers’ Union against the

appellant (FCI) seeking a mandamus against the appellant (FCI)

directing them to implement the award (Ex.P­1) passed by the

Industrial Tribunal, Chennai also in relation to the employees

working in Branch offices at Kerala named above.  

5) The said award (Ex.P­1) directed the FCI to give benefits of

regularization of the workers in the services of the FCI

consequent upon abolition of contract laborers system in

relation to Branch office at Chennai.   This award (Ex.P­1) was

upheld by this Court and attained finality.

6) The  High  Court,   by impugned order, allowed the  writ

petitions filed by the workers’ Union (respondents herein) and

directed the FCI to give benefits of the said award to the

18

members  of the  workers’  Union  (respondent  herein),  who are

working in two depots at Kerala finding no dissimilarity in two

set of these cases.

7) We also do not find any justifiable reason(s) to deny the

relief granted by the High Court to the writ petitioners

(respondents herein) insofar as these two appeals are

concerned. It is more so when no distinguishing features were

pointed out by the appellants on the facts or law, which may

persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken

by the High Court in the impugned order. What were pressed

into service were only the technical issues arising in the case

but we were not impressed by such issues. They did not go to

the root of the case.  

8) Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case coupled with the judicial orders passed against the

appellant in relation to identical matters, we find no good

ground to take any other view in the case than the one taken by

Madras High Court in similar case and in the impugned orders.

19

9) In the light of the foregoing discussion, these appeals also

fail and are accordingly dismissed.    

                  ………...................................J.

  [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                      

…...……..................................J.           [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

New Delhi; August 20, 2018  

20