Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin

“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