Karnataka High Court
The Food Corporation Of India vs Food Corporation Of India Workers Union on 15 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.743 OF 2020 (L-RES)
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NO.697 OF 2020 (L-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.719 OF 2020 (L-MW)
WRIT APPEAL NO.743 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
1. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/
MANAGING DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE NO.11
BARAKAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-110 001
2. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE, HADDOUS ROAD
CHENNAI
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
NO.10, EAST END MAIN ROAD
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 011
4. THE AREA MANAGER
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
371/A, PRESTIGE COMPLEX
RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSURU-24
...APPELLANTS
(By SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W.
MRS. SEEMANDINI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
-
2
SRI. DINESH RAO N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION
REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY
58/1, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD
KOLKATA-700 023
2. DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
"SHRAM SADAN", III CROSS, 3RD MAIN
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
II STAGE, TUMAKURU ROAD
BENGALURU-560 022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. RESHMA K. THAMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2020, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.11638/2015, WHEREIN THE ORDER
DATED 21.07.2014 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE - C HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
WRIT APPEAL NO.697 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
1 . THE GENERAL MANAGER
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
NO.10, EAST END MAIN ROAD
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 011
2 . THE AREA MANAGER
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
DISTRICT OFFICE
SRI. M.V. ROAD, THILAK NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
-
3
3 . DEPOT MANAGER
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
PERAMPALLY, SHIVALLI VILLAGE
UDUPI-576 101
...APPELLANTS
(By SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W.
MRS. SEEMANDINI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. DINESH RAO N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRESIDENT
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA HEAD LOAD
AND DAILY WAGES WORKERS UNION
NO.2-4A, SRI MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA
ANJARA GRAMA, HIRIYADIKA POST
UDUPI-576 101
2. DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
"SHRAM SADAN", III CROSS, 3RD MAIN
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
II STAGE, TUMAKURU ROAD
BENGALURU-560 022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE &
SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O. DATED 18.07.2023,
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.10.2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.19187/2015, BY ALLOWING
THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
WRIT APPEAL NO.719 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
THE AREA MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
TILAK NAGAR, SIR. M.V. ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...APPELLANT
-
4
(By SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W.
MRS. SEEMANDINI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. DINESH RAO N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. GURURAJ SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE UPENDRA SHENOY
PARTNER M/S. SHRI GURU TRANSPORT
NEAR C.W.C. WARE HOUSE CORPORATION
MANNAGUDDA
MANGALURU-575 003
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF
LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
SHARMA SADANA, III CROSS, 3RD MAIN
YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
TUMAKURU ROAD
BENGALURU-560 022
3. THE PRESIDENT FCI HEAD LOAD AND
DAILY WAGE WORKERS UNION
NO.2-4A, SRI MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA
ANJARA GRAMA, HIRIYADKA POST
UDUPI-576 113
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSG FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.10.2020, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN SO FAR AS W.P.No.11249/2015 IS
CONCERNED BY DISMISSING THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-
5
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) These writ appeals are filed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) challenging the impugned order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.11249/2015 c/w. 11638/2015, 19187/2015.
2. We have heard Shri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel and Smt.V.P.Seemandini, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Dinesh Rao N, learned counsel for the appellants in all the appeals, Shri L. Muralidhar Peshwa, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Reshma K. Thammaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.743/2020, Shri M. Narayana Bhat and Shri Ashok Kumar Shetty K, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Smt. Namita Mahesh, Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.2 in W.A.No.697/2020 and Shri H. Shanti Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents in W.A.No.719/2020.
-
6
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the FCI is a statutory corporation formed under the Food Corporations Act, 1964 with the purpose of implementing food policy across India. It operates a vast network of depots where food grains are stored and distributed. The handling of food grain bags in these depots is largely managed through a contract labour system, especially in over 1500 depots out of approximately 1800. Contractors are selected via open tender and they handle various tasks like loading and unloading bags. The contractors are paid based on the volume of work performed and there is no direct relationship between the corporation and the individual labourers employed by the contractors. The FCI points out that the studies conducted by Deloitte show that it is not a continuous activity.
4. It is further submitted that the use of regular labour, where it exists, has developed due to settlements between appellants and the respondents, often following strikes or government interventions. These settlements were prompted by prohibitory notifications issued between 1989
-
7 and 2011 that banned contract labour in certain depots. However, after a Public Interest Litigation in 2014, the Nagpur Bench exempted these depots from the prohibitory notifications and the FCI is now seeking formal denotification. It is further submitted that the FCI's regular labour in depots falls into three categories:
(i) Departmental Labour System (for short "DLS"),
(ii) Direct Payment System (for short "DPS"), and
(iii) No Work No Pay (for short "NWNP").
5. It is further submitted that the DLS, once the standard system, has been phased out since 1991 due to its high costs. Under DPS, workers are paid based on piece rates and after 2013, the NWNP system was introduced, where workers are paid only for the days when work is available. It is contended that the central issue in this case arises from claims made by labour unions under Rule 25(2)(v)(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 ("Rules 1971" for short). This Rule mandates that contract workers performing the same
-
8 or similar tasks as regular workers should receive the same wages and benefits. This Rule has no applicability in FCI depots since no directly employed regular workers perform the same work as contract labourers in the depots in question and the labour conditions differ between depots.
6. It is also submitted that the respondents filed claims seeking wage parity for contract workers in certain depots with those of regular workers in other depots. In 2014, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner allowed these claims, which led appellants to file writ petitions challenging these orders. The learned Single Judge dismissed appellants' petitions in 2020 and upheld the claims made by the respondent - Trade Union, ordering the corporation to pay wage differences to the contract workers within three months. The appellant - FCI is now appealing this decision, arguing that the order of the learned Single Judge is flawed and that the application under Rule 25 of Rules 1971, was inappropriate.
7. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that each depot is a separate
-
9 entity which employs only one type of labour in each such depot. Rule 25 of the Rules of 1971, provides for Uniformity of Wage Pattern between employees in an "establishment". The definition of establishment under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("CLRA Act" for short) would make it clear that each depot of the FCI is a separate establishment and therefore there is no scope for applying wage parity between separate establishments under the FCI. The depot managers are the principal employers in respect of each depot. The decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India and another, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 294, is relied on to contend that the separate depots under the FCI would be separate establishments where the Trade of the Corporation is being carried out. In Depots, where handling of food grains is carried out through contract labour system, no regular worker is employed for carrying out the same or similar work.
8. It is contended that out of 2,200 depots of FCI, Section 10 was imposed on 289 depots. The Labour Ministry
-
10 issued notification under Section 31 for 226 depots wherein, these depots were exempted from the applicability of prohibitory notifications and Section 10 implications. These notifications were issued establishment (Depot) wise and these gazette notifications specifically mention the name of each depot separately thereby confirming their identity as separate establishments. Further, the Contract labourers are engaged through the Tender process wherein, a public notice inviting bids is issued and after thorough process of examining the bidders (technically & financially) L1 is declared and the Contract is awarded to them. As per the MTF & the CLRA, minimum wages are to be ensured by the Principle Employer. If at all, any further payment is to be given, it should be paid by the Contractor.
9. It is further contended that under Rule 25 of Rules of 1971, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has been conferred with the limited power to determine whether the work performed by contract workers and regular workers is of similar nature or not. He has no power to adjudicate the matter and issue an order for payment of equal wages. A
-
11 detailed mechanism has been provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for resolution of industrial disputes. As held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of "General Manager Food Corporation of India and others v. Union of India and others" Writ C No.25349 of 2018, the enquiry of Deputy CLC. under Rule 25 of Rules 1971, can at the best be treated as conciliation proceedings and if an industrial dispute is not resolved in such conciliation, the report of Deputy CLC can be treated as Failure of Conciliation (FOC) report and the Central Government can refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
10. The FCI has registration of their establishments under section 7 of the CLRA Act and has fulfilled all statutory requirements. The contractor who has obtained licence under section 12 of the Act has to comply with the licensing conditions including payment of applicable wages to the workers. The consequence of non-compliance would be revocation or suspension of licence. The liability of principal employer under Sections 20 and 21 of the CLRA Act, is limited to ensuring amenities to be provided and release of
-
12 wages by the contractor. The FCI has no supervisory or disciplinary power in respect of the workers engaged by the contractor and no action can be initiated against any of the contract workers engaged through a private contractor. There was a valid contact between the contractor and FCI to undertake the work at the agreed rates. In the instant case, the Contractor is set free from the liabilities for the payment and FCI has been made liable to pay, which is not as per any law of the land. Further, in WA No.719/2020, the Contractor, who is a necessary party in the case, is yet to be represented before this Court in Writ Appeals.
11. It is further contended that the decision of the learned Single Judge placed the liability for wage disparity on FCI rather than the contractor, as per Rule 25 of Rules 1971. The learned senior counsel relied on external studies, including those conducted by M/s. Deloitte and a High-Level Committee, which concluded that the work in FCI depots is not perennial, thus justifying the use of contract labour. This view was reinforced by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in a PIL judgment dated 20.11.2015. This
-
13 judgment, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 31.07.2017, allowed FCI to continue engaging contract labour. The appellants contend that imposing equal pay for contract workers would significantly increase FCI's handling costs, from Rs.70 per metric ton under the contract labour system to approximately Rs.1,000/- per metric ton under the regular labour system, placing an excessive burden on the public exchequer.
12. It is further contended that there are practical difficulties in determining the identity of contract workers, their period of engagement and the wages they actually received, given that contractors are free to hire and rotate workers across different depots. It is also contended that the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) exceeded his authority by ordering wage parity. Under Rule 25, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner can only assess whether the work performed by contract workers is of a similar nature to that of regular workers, but he lacks the power to adjudicate wage claims.
-
14
13. It is contended that the interpretation of Section 30 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, by the learned Single Judge, outlines the principal employer's obligations to ensure contract workers are paid no less than the minimum guaranteed wages. The appellants assert that the contractor is free to pay more than regular workers, but this does not obligate FCI to equalize wages.
14. It is also contended that the contract in question was valid for a limited period and upon its expiration, the labourers, many of whom were part of the respondent -Trade Union, would likely have moved on to other employment. Thus, the order would indirectly create a backdoor entry into permanent employment, which contradicts settled legal principles, including those laid out in The Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 .
15. In W.A.No.743/2020, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants had produced the further materials in support of his contentions viz., Judgment dated 15.09.2021, Technical Bid, Acceptance of Handling and
-
15 transport contract at FSD. Mysuru, Exemption Notification dated 19.10.2022, Dy.CLC Proceedings, Broad Guidelines for regulating the service condition of No Work No Pay system workers and FCI Labour Manual relevant portion.
16. The following judgments were also relied on:-
• Steel Authority of India Limited and Another v. Jaggu and Others, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 658, to contend that where application under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, are filed by the Unions, the primary burden is upon the applicants to establish that the duties discharged by them were same or similar in nature to that of regular/direct employees of the appellants. It is contended that in the instant case, the burden was cast on the FCI to prove that the nature of employment was different.
• Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1, to contend that there is no master and servant relationship between the principal employer and an employee engaged by the contractor, where contract
-
16
labour is engaged on the basis of permissions granted under the Act.
• Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India, reported in 2016(2) Mh. L.J., 647, is also cited in support of the contention that the appropriate authority should have considered whether the work is of perennial nature and further whether the work is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents however contends that the representation submitted by the Unions was only for determination of wage rates, holidays, hours of work etc. Placing reliance on the provisions of Rule 25(2)(v)(b) of the Control Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, it is contended that the Rule specifically provides for determination of such matters by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). It is contended that the explanation to the sub-rule specifically provides that while determining the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service under clause (b) the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner shall have due regard to the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of
-
17 service obtaining in similar employments. It is contended that even if each depot is treated as a separate establishment, the FCI, which is the primary employer in all these cases, cannot contend that they can pay wages and fix conditions of service, which are much lower than those applicable to labourers doing the same work in other depots. It is only in exercise of the power of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner to determine the wages and other conditions of service that the order has been passed and that the contentions raised in the appeal are devoid of merits. Our attention is also drawn to the order of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner specifically paragraph No.4 thereof, where the question of nature of work was specifically considered by the authority with due notice to the principal employer.
18. It is also contended that the manner of payment cannot be the determining factor in evaluating the nature of work. The labourers, regardless of the depot or payment system, were performing identical tasks, suggesting that differential pay systems may not be legally or morally
-
18 justifiable. It is contended that the contract labourers and labourers engaged under DPS or NWNP systems were doing the same or similar work. The management of the FCI had failed to present any uniform policy or criteria to explain why such different systems were in place across depots.
19. It is contended that inconsistency in FCI's labour practices is further highlighted by the management's inability to justify why some depots adopted the contract labour system while others employed the DPS or NWNP systems. The unilateral declaration of these systems by FCI, without a clear, consistent policy, has resulted in significant differences in wages and working conditions for workers performing the same tasks. Despite several opportunities provided, the FCI management failed to explain why such disparities exist, leading to the conclusion that the wage system applied to contract labourers is discriminatory and lacks legal or practical justification. It is also contended that the workers under the contract labour system are not only performing the same tasks as those under the DPS or NWNP systems
-
19 but are also receiving lower wages and fewer benefits, which is contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work.
20. We have considered the contentions advanced. We notice that the representation submitted by the Union, which led to the order of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, reads as follows:-
"Considering the facts stated above you will kindly realise that it is unethical on the part of the Contractor and the principal employer Food Corporation of India paid a paltry amount to the contract workers, It is also worthwhile to mention that there is no minimum wages fixed by the Government for the Handling and the Ancillary workers in loading/unloading of food grains. The FCI has fixed minimum wage for such job for the workers in other depots.
You being the authority of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 in the Rules made there under we would request you to kindly fix rate of wages, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workers working in the above depots through contractors years together at par with the wages paid to the workers of FCI for similar job. The order may kindly be passed under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) for the depots namely (1) Palakole (2) Amala Puram & (3) K.C. Depot in Andhra Pradesh and depots namely (1) K.G.F (2) Mysore & (3) Kushalnagar in Karnataka Region. If any further particulars in the matter is required it may kindly be intimated to us and will furnish the same on demands.
Section 2 (e) of the CLRA, 1971 reads as follows:-
-20
"2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxxxx
(e) "establishment" means -
(i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or
(ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on;"
Section 20 of the CLRA, 1971 is as follows:-
"20. Liability of principal employer in certain cases.
- (1) If any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18 or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed.
(2) All expenses incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor."
Rule 25 of the Rules, 1971 reads as follows:-
"25. Forms and terms and conditions of licence.-
(1) Every licence granted under sub-section (1) of section 12 shall be in Form VI.
(2) Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) or renewed under rule 29 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) the licence shall be non-transferable;
(ii) the number of workmen employed as contract labour in the establishment shall not, on any day, exceed the maximum number specified in the licence;
-
21
(iii) save as provided in these rules, the fees paid for the grant, or as the case may be, for renewal of the licence shall be non-refundable;
(iv) the rates of wages payable to the workmen by the contractor shall not be less than the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948), for such employment where applicable and where the rates have been fixed by agreement, settlement or award, not less than the rates so fixed;
(v) (a) in cases where the workman employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work:
Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work the same shall be decided by [the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)] 2[***];
(b) in other cases the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be such as may be specified in this behalf by [the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)];
Explanation.- While determining the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of services under (b) above, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) shall have due regard to the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service obtaining in similar employments;
(vi) (a) in every establishment where twenty or more women are ordinarily employed as contract labour, there shall be provided two rooms of reasonable dimensions for the use of their children under the age of six years,
(b) one of such rooms shall be used as a play room for the children and the other as bed room for the children,
(c) the contractor shall supply adequate number of toys and games in the play room and sufficient number of cots and beddings in the sleeping room,
-
22
(d) the standard of construction and maintenance of the creches shall be such as may be specified in this behalf by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central);
(vii) the licensee shall notify any change in the number of workmen or the conditions of work to the licensing officer,
(viii) the licensee shall, within fifteen days of the commencement and completion of each contract work submit a return to the Inspector, appointed under section 28 of the Act intimating the actual date of the commencement or, as the case may be, completion of such contract work in Form VIA;]
(ix) a copy of the licence shall be displayed prominently at the premises where the contract work is being carried on:]
(x) no female contract labour shall be employed by any contractor before 6.00 a.m. or after 7.00 p.m.:
Provided that this clause shall not apply to the employment of women in pithead baths, creches and canteens and so to midwives and nurses in hospitals and dispensaries.]"
21. The request, therefore, apparently was for a determination of wage rates, holidays, hours of work etc., as provided in Rule 25(2)(v)(b) of the Rules of 1971.
22. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, after considering the contentions of the parties and conducting site inspections found that inspite of grant of several opportunities, no policy or criteria to understand why separate systems are employed in separate depots was placed on record by the appellants. The order by itself would show that what was being considered was a petition under
-
23 Rule 25(2)(v)(b) of the Rules of 1971. It is therefore, clear that even if the contention that the depots are different establishments for the purpose of the Rules is accepted, there is a duty cast upon the authority to take note of the conditions of service obtaining in similar employments for the purpose of the determination as contemplated in the relevant Rule.
23. The contentions of the appellants have been considered by the learned Single Judge in extenso. The contractor, who was a party in one of the writ petitions was also heard and the findings of the authority were also discussed in detail. It was found that in the light of the specific provisions of the Act, the contentions of the FCI that different wages are to be paid to the persons engaged to discharge the same nature of work, merely because some of them were engaged through a contractor, was found to be untenable. The provisions of the Act and the Rules were also noticed. After considering all the contentions and the aspects of the matter including the decisions relied on that the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the authority.
-
24
24. Having considered the contentions advanced, the statutory provisions as well as the precedents relied on, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the authority had only directed wage parity and parity in the matter of conditions of service to be maintained prospectively from the date of the application. The consequence would only be that the said conditions and wages would have to be factored in, when future contracts are being entered into by the FCI. The FCI, being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot contend that humane working conditions and wages would not be made available to workers engaged in its depots albeit through 'handling contractors'. Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions, pleadings and materials on record, we are not convinced that any grounds have been made out for interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in these intra-Court appeals.
-
25
25. The appeals fail, the same are accordingly dismissed.
Pending IAs., if any, in all the appeals stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE cp*