Kerala High Court
Thrissur Jilla General Mazdoor Sangh ... vs The Food Corporation Of India on 4 September, 2013
Author: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935
WA.No. 1746 of 2013 ()
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14786/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
DATED 04-09-2013
---------------------
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS :
---------------------------------------------
1. THRISSUR JILLA GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGH FCI UNIT
MULANGUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680581
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT A.K. SURESH KUMAR.
2. FCI LABOUR UNION
FCI UNIT,MULANGUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680581
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T.P.SANTHOSH.
3. FCI WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CITU)
FCI, MULANGUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680581
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY E.N. PEETHAMBARAN.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------------------------------
1. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESNTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
FCI HEAD QUARTERS, 16/20, BARAKHAMBA LANE,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 3
HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-680006.
3. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696004.
4. THE AREA MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
MULANGUNNATHUKAVU P.O.
THRISSUR-680581.
...2/-
WA.No. 1746 of 2013 () -2-
5. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
SHRAM SADAN, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682030.
R1 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI
SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED
R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
WA.No. 1746 of 2013 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : NIL
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :
EXT.R -1 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.1.2013 FOR
DIRECTION FILED BY THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL
APPEAL NO 10511 OF 2011.
EXT.R -2 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.4.2013 PASSED BY
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN IA NO. 5 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10511 OF 2011.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
& A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.A.No.1746 of 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India.
2. The long and short of this litigation is as to whether Ext.P1 award could be directed to be implemented. In Ext.P2, the learned single Judge had issued a direction for its implementation, having regard to the peculiar nature of that award. However, in the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has left open the right of the parties to other remedies, to implement the award that has been issued, on the premise that, according to the learned single Judge, the award is only to abolish contract labour and for absorption of such labourers as regular employees of the Management, and the statement on behalf of the Food Corporation of India before the learned single Judge apparently showed that the award has been satisfied to a large extent. We think that this situation would not have arisen if Ext.P3 judgment of the Division Bench affirming Ext.P2 judgment W.A.No.1746 of 2013 -:2:- was pointedly referred to, at the time of hearing of the writ petition before the learned single Judge. From the impugned judgment, we see that Ext.P2 judgment in O.P.No.14360/1999 impugned in W.A.No.2491/2009 was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge, specifically. Taking Exts.P2 and P3 together, we do not find any ground to disagree with the views expressed in Ext.P3, by the Division Bench.
In the result, the impugned judgment is vacated and this writ appeal is allowed ordering it in terms of the directions issued in O.P.No.14360/1999 as affirmed in W.A.No.2491/2009. Resultantly, the writ petition from which this appeal arises will stand ordered in terms of the directions issued in O.P.No.14360/1999 as affirmed in W.A.No.2491/2009. This appeal is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms