Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

“Supreme Court Upholds Award for Reinstatement of Workers in Food Corporation of India Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Award issued by the Tribunal, stating, “the action of the management of Food Corporation of India (FCI) in retrenching 21 casual workers without notice or compensation was not justified” (Para 4). The Court further held that the workers are entitled to “reinstatement and regularization in service as vacancies in Class IV posts were available” (Para 4).

The case, which arose from an industrial dispute, saw the Tribunal passing an Award directing FCI to reinstate the workers and regularize their services in Class-IV posts. The Tribunal also ordered FCI to pay the workers 75% of their back wages. The judgment stated, “the management of FCI voluntarily chose to implement the Award in its totality” (Para 12).

Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, FCI management filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Award. The judgment noted, “the learned Judge affirmed the finding of the Tribunal” (Para 6).

In the subsequent appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the management cannot raise the issue of reinstatement and back wages, as it was not challenged before the Division Bench. The judgment stated, “the grounds raised by the management in its appeal before the Division Bench related mostly to the aspect of regularization of the services” (Para 9).

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of approbate and reprobate, stating, “a party to a proceeding cannot be permitted to challenge the same but thereafter abide by it out of its own free will” (Para 15). The Court observed that FCI voluntarily implemented the Award and absorbed the workers in regular service, noting, “the management of FCI, be it for whatever reason, chose to acquiesce with and accept the Award in its entirety” (Para 15).

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Executive Staff Union of FCI, restoring the Tribunal’s Award and the High Court’s order. The judgment stated, “the appeal filed by the management of FCI raising these issues is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that short ground” (Para 9).

This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court serves as a significant victory for the workers, reaffirming their right to reinstatement and regularization. It underscores the importance of compliance with legal obligations and the consequences of voluntary implementation of awards. The decision sets a precedent for the sanctity of implemented awards and upholds the rights of workers in industrial disputes.

 Date of Decision: July 3, 2023

 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 & Anr.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/03-Jul-2023-Workmen-Vs-FCI.pdf"]      

Latest Legal News