By order dated 12.01.1996 issued under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, referred the industrial dispute raised by the Executive Staff Union of Food Corporation of India, espousing the cause of 21 casual workers, for adjudication.
In consequence, the Tribunal passed Award dated 18.03.1997, holding that the action of the management of FCI in retrenching the services of these workmen was not justified and directed the management to reinstate them and regularize their services in Class-IV posts with effect from 10.05.1990, i.e., the date of their retrenchment, and to pay them 75% of their back wages, within a time frame. This contempt case was disposed of on 12.05.2000, holding that if the management failed to comply with the condition in the stay order dated 05.08.1999 within two weeks, it would automatically stand vacated and the workmen would be entitled to take steps for implementation of the Award. Having said so, the learned Judge observed that a casual employee who worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year would only be entitled to reinstatement in service, if his termination 3 from service is without notice or compensation in lieu thereof, as provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and he would not be entitled to seek regularization in service.
The Division Bench disposed of the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Judge declining to interfere with the Award in so far as it directed regularization of services, but left untouched the direction to pay 75% of the back wages.
The Executive Staff Union of FCI filed an appeal on behalf of the workmen concerned, aggrieved by the denial of regularization of their services, while the management of FCI is in appeal against the direction of reinstatement and payment of 75% of the back wages to the said workmen. As regards the appeal filed on behalf of the workmen, the only issue raised therein is as to the regularization in service of those workmen and the legality of the Award to the extent of granting such relief.
Notably, all that was required of the management of FCI, as per the interim order dated 05.08.1999 in CWJC
No 953 of 1998 (R), was that it should pay the full wages last drawn by the workmen concerned, pending the disposal of the said writ petition, in due compliance with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
371 of 2000 only put the management on notice that if it failed to comply with the conditional stay order within two weeks, the said order would stand vacated and the workmen would be at liberty to seek implementation of the Award.
Pertinently, there is no evidence of the management at least seeking expeditious disposal of the writ petition after complying with the Award, making it subject to the result thereof. Murugesan and others
[(2022) 2 SCC 25], this Court pointed out that the phrases ‘approbate’ and ‘reprobate’ mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, as the principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate, that is, a person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. In effect, the management of FCI, be it for whatever reason, chose to acquiesce with and accept the Award in its entirety, though it made such compliance subject to the result of the writ petition.
The appeal filed by the Executive Staff Union of FCI, on behalf of the workmen, is accordingly allowed and the judgment dated 17.12.2020 in LPA No 80 of 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, is set aside.
Pending I.A.s, if any, in both appeals shall stand closed.
Case Title: THEIR WORKMEN THROUGH THE JOINT SECRETARY (WELFARE) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA EXECUTIVE STAFF UNION Vs. EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 588)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004152-004152 / 2023
