Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

“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