Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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