Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

“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