Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 619 (RAJ)

Veera Ram v. Food Corporation of India

2005-02-23

RAJESH BALIA

body2005
Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. None has appeared for respondents in spite of service. As the matter is old one, writ petition itself has been heard on merits. 2. The petitioners, number in 5, claimed themselves to be employed with the respondent No. 5, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi. According to the petitioners allegations, they were employed since 1988, 1988, 1986, 1985 and 1981, respectively. They were employed through the contractor. However by Notification dated Nov. 1, 1990, employment of contract labours by the FCI was prohibited at the godowns, and consequently, question arose for absorption for the contract labours employed with the Corporation as employees directly in the Corporation. 3. The petitioners claimed that the respondents have issued a seniority list Annexure P-3. The petitioners being senior persons, but junior persons have been absorbed, they had preferred this petition seeking mandamus that respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners as per their seniority list issued by the Respondent No. 3 with all consequential benefits and not to adopt pick and choose policy. 4. The respondents in their turn have denied the claim of the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground, apart from raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition only without entering into merits of the case, that the petitioner No. 3 and 5 (sic) never in its employment either through contractors or directly nor any contribution towards EPF were ever deducted from respondent No. 3 & 5. The petitioner No. 4 was only in employment for six days only and that the petitioner No. 2 while he was working under contract, was negligent in working. Hence, there was no room for absorption. About Petitioner No. 1, it was stated that though he is senior, his absorption is disputed by the Union to which he belongs. Therefore, one post has been kept vacant for the purpose of giving appointment to the rightful claimant. 5. There is no dispute about the abolition of contract labour at FCI godowns. About absorption of employees under contractors was as per requirement of rationalisation of work requirement as per agreement entered into between corporation and workers union and number of posts to be retained or created was to be decided according to rationalised requirement of work under the agreement. There is no dispute about the abolition of contract labour at FCI godowns. About absorption of employees under contractors was as per requirement of rationalisation of work requirement as per agreement entered into between corporation and workers union and number of posts to be retained or created was to be decided according to rationalised requirement of work under the agreement. As per agreement, in the first instance, workmen were to be absorbed against required strength as per rationalisation of the work. In addition to the aforesaid requirement identified on the basis of per capita out put, the agreement spelt out additional hands shall also be employed as per work load, capacity and has further agreed that if there is any surplus labour at any depot, they were to be accommodated in other depots to the extent possible within the same list limited to the same state to make up shortage if any. Thus, an arrangement was carved out absorbing as many hands without any commitment to absorb all the candidates. 6. It is not the case of the petitioners also that all employees are required to be absorbed but their claim is founded on seniority basis, which according to them has been issued by the respondent Corporation vide Annexure P-3. 7. I have noticed above the seniority position as accepted by respondents. In respect of document alleged to be seniority list, the respondents have clearly made out that it is not a seniority list of the workmen, but is only a list of workmen who were eligible for Provident Fund contribution, therefore, list Annexure P-3 is not seniority list on the basis of which any claim can be founded. 8. The petitioners in their rejoinder have tried to deny the assertions made by the respondents by referring to some I.D. Card, alleged to have been issued by the Union in favour of the some of the petitioners. However, I.D. Cards of the petitioners do not bestow the character of employees identified immediately for absorption, at the best it can identify them to be employed under contract scheme through contractor who may be considered for absorption through joint exercise of management and Union. The question may also arises about the genuineness or otherwise of ID card issued by Union at different times. 9. The question may also arises about the genuineness or otherwise of ID card issued by Union at different times. 9. Be that as it may, the aforesaid state of affairs in the pleadings clearly goes to show that there are serious disputed questions of fact and dispute about tenor and effect of bipartite agreement entered into between Union and employer arise. The Union does not appear to have taken up case of the petitioners. As a matter of fact in reply of the respondents while petitioner Nos. 3 & 5 are not admitted to be employees at all petitioner No. 4 is admitted to be employed for 6 days and petitioner No.2 is alleged to have been denied absorption due to his earlier conduct and the absorption of petitioner No. 1 is opposed by the Union itself . In view of all these circumstances, apparently, serious disputed questions of fact arose which cannot be a subject matter of petition under Article 226 and can be resolved appropriately by raising Industrial Dispute in that regard. 10. So far as case of the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, at the best it can be said that dispute has been raised by the Union. It may be dispute between workers Union and petitioner with which management is not concerned. But the management has taken bona fide steps and kept one post reserved for the legitimate claimant as and when said dispute is resovled. 11. In these circumstances, no interference is called for and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. However, it is open for the petitioners, to have a recourse for appropriate remedy which may be available to the petitioners under the law by raising dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or any other remedy provided under the rules of the Corporation, and the period during which this petition remain pended, may not be held against invoking such remedy.