JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. These two writ appeals are being disposed of by one common judgment since the factual matrix leading to the filing of the two writ petitions is similar though some of the issues involved may be slightly different. 2. The undisputed facts are that 37 workmen approached the Industrial Tribunal claiming that they are entitled to the same wages as Direct Payment System (DPS) workers of the Food Corporation of India (FCI). The allegation of these 37 workers was that they were employed by the FCI on daily wages in the Godown owned by the Central Warehouses Corporation (CWC) at Hapania, Agartala to unload and load food grains of the FCI. According to these workers they were being paid wages lesser than the wages being paid to those workers who were employed under the Direct Payment System of FCI. 3. On such dispute being raised the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, Assam, in the year 1993 to decide the following issue. “Whether the claim of wages of 37 workers w.e.f. 1-8-88 to 31-10-89 (15 months) at par with direct payment system workers of Food Corporation of India in justified? If so, what relief the workers concerned are entitled to?” 4. In the said reference the workmen and the management were allowed to produce evidence. The CWC was also made a party in the reference because one of the disputes raised by the FCI was that these 37 workers were not workers of the FCI but workers of the CWC. The workers union examined two witnesses, the FCI examined two witnesses and the CWC examined one witness. The identity of the 37 workers was not disputed before the Industrial Tribunal. The contention of the Central Warehouses Corporation was that though the warehouse was owned by them, this had been hired to the FCI and the labour was that of the FCI and not of the CWC. The case set up by the FCI was that it uses the Godowns of the CWC to store food grain and sugar. According to the FCI the work of loading and unloading a storage is managed by the CWC and the workmen were never engaged by the FCI but by the CWC. 5. The case set up by the FCI was that it uses the Godowns of the CWC to store food grain and sugar. According to the FCI the work of loading and unloading a storage is managed by the CWC and the workmen were never engaged by the FCI but by the CWC. 5. After considering the entire evidence the Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 17th February 1998 held as follows:- “In the light of the above discussions it can be safely held that there exists a relationship of employer and employee in between the management of FCI and of the workers who have been working for loading and unloading of goods of FCI at Hapania under the direct payment system of FCI prior to 1988 and are also working as such, at present, and are drawing wages at the revised rates under settlement of 1992, they are legally entitled to have the benefits of wage rates of entitlement dt. 7-11-88 effective from 1-9-88. Deprivation of the benefits under settlement dt. 9-11-88 on the plea that they are not their workers is arbitrary and not legally tenable in the eye of law. As a result, it is held that the management of FCI is not justified in withholding the benefits of revised wage rates under settlement dt. 9-11-88 to these 37 workers for the period from 1-08-88 to 31-10-89 and the management of FCI is hereby directed to pay the wages under the Direct Payment System of settlement of 1988 forthwith to these 37 workers.” 6. The FCI challenged this award by filing a WP(C) in the Agartala Bench of the Guwahati High Court. It is not disputed that the writ petition was dismissed and the writ appeal filed against the judgment passed in also dismissed. Thereafter, was filed by the FCI Workers Union through its authorized representative Sri Ranjit Ghosh, Sardar of the FCI, CWC, Hapania Depot. In this petition the claim of the petitioner is that once they have been held to be entitled to equal wages to those workers working under the DPS system, every time there is a revision of wages they are not required to again approach the Industrial Tribunal and they WA No.22 Of 2015 along with are entitled as a matter of right to get the enhanced wages payable to those workers who are engaged under the DPS system. 7. 7. In this case the contention of the FCI was that the workers are claiming parity with regularly appointed workers and not with DPS workers. Sri A.K. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel has clearly stated before this Court that his prayer is limited to parity and equality of wages with the wages granted to workers working under the DPS system. He does not claim any equality with regularly appointed workers but his claim is that all emoluments including wages and allowances payable to workers working under the DPS system should be paid to these 37 workers and every time there is a revision in the pay and allowances of the DPS workers, the same should be automatically applicable to these 37 workers. Writ petition WP(C) No.227 of 2005 was decided by a learned Single Judge on 14.3.2014 and the Court held that the consequential benefits of the industrial award referred to hereinabove must be released in favour of the 37 workmen after due calculation is carried out by the FCI because the Court did not accept the calculation placed by the Union to be totally correct at face value. 8. We find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The workmen concerned are not claiming anything more than what was granted to them under the award which has attained finality. In the said award it was clearly held that they are entitled to the same wages as those workmen who are engaged under the DPS system. Wages obviously includes other allowances and facilities which are available to the DPS workers. Every time there is a revision or modification in the pay scales or the allowances, these 37 workers cannot be expected to again approach the Industrial Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. The FCI which is a Government of India Corporation is expected to be a model employer and once there is an award given by the Tribunal which has been upheld by this Court, it is expected that the FCI implements the award in letter and spirit without driving the workmen to fresh rounds of litigation. The stand of the FCI, to say the least, is highly improper. We do not expect a Government Corporation to take such an adversarial stand. The stand of the FCI, to say the least, is highly improper. We do not expect a Government Corporation to take such an adversarial stand. The stand before the learned Single Judge could easily have been that they will pay all the wages and allowances which are payable to the workers governed by the DPS system and they should not have taken any contrarian view. They, however, contested the writ petition tooth and nail and only after the same has been decided in along with this Court it has been urged that they are only opposing the writ insofar as the claim of the workers relates to parity with regularly appointed FCI workers. In fact, there is no such claim of the workers. They have claimed parity only with those workers covered by the DPS system. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. 9. Coming to Writ Appeal No.22 of 2015. In this case the workers filed WP(C) No.405 of 2005 which came up before another learned Single Judge in this Court. In this writ petition the main grievance of the workers was that though under the award referred to above they had been directed to be treated to be equivalent to DPS workers, the FCI had taken a decision to appoint a contractor over and above them so that their status would be changed to that of contract labour and they would cease to be equivalent to DPS labour. The stand of the FCI in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge was that these 37 workmen are not the employees of the FCI and it was again the contention of the FCI that these 37 workmen are the employees of the CWC. 10. The FCI urges that the workmen were employees of the CWC and not the FCI. In this petition the CWC was added as a party at a later stage and the CWC again reiterated that these 37 workmen are not its employees but the employees of the FCI. In the reply filed by the FCI it is stated as follows:- “4. That the Writ Petitioners, by this Writ Petition seek to prevent the F.C.I. from taking steps for introducing the system of engaging workmen through contractor in the manner permitted by law. The demand of the Writ Petitioners itself is unlawful and unreasonable. In the reply filed by the FCI it is stated as follows:- “4. That the Writ Petitioners, by this Writ Petition seek to prevent the F.C.I. from taking steps for introducing the system of engaging workmen through contractor in the manner permitted by law. The demand of the Writ Petitioners itself is unlawful and unreasonable. A close perusal of the letter dated, 19-05-2005 (Annexure-3 of the Writ Petition) would clearly indicate the reason why the F.C.I. is being compelled to propose the engagement of Contractors. The Workmen in question admittedly are engaged in the C.W.C. and the F.C.I. using the godowns of the C.W.C. use the labour of the workmen there and wages to them are paid through a Sardar being duly certified by the C.W.C. The penultimate paragraph of the letter indicates that the said Workmen have been indirectly forcing the F.C.I. to treat them as the workmen of the F.C.I. The F.C.I. cannot afford to surrender to such force in the interest of F.C.I. itself. At the same time the F.C.I. does not want to discontinue with the service of the said Workmen. It may be made clear that as and when the F.C.I. shall have their own storing accommodation they would cease to use the F.C.I. godowns and such cessation would automatically effect the engagement of the workmen represented by the Petitioner. They have no legal right or entitlement to be treated at per with the regularly employed workmen of the F.C.I.” 11. It would also be pertinent to mention that in the meantime the workers covered under the DPS system in different parts of the country had also approached for reference of a dispute to the National Tribunal that these workers are entitled to the same wages as regular departmentally appointed workers. We are not concerned with that dispute. The stand of the petitioner was that once they had been held by the Tribunal to be entitled to the same wages as those workers appointed under the DPS system, this could not be changed to their disadvantage. The other submission was that since the claim of the workers falling under the DPS system had been referred to the National Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the status of the workmen could not be changed to their prejudice. The other submission was that since the claim of the workers falling under the DPS system had been referred to the National Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the status of the workmen could not be changed to their prejudice. As pointed out above, the stand of the FCI was only that these 37 workmen are not its employees and secondly, that the FCI could not be prevented from introducing the system of engaging the workmen through the contractor as permissible under law. 12. The learned Single Judge held that in view of the award passed by the Tribunal which has been referred to above and in view of the stand of the CWC that the workmen are not its employees, the workmen have to be treated at par with direct payment system workmen and, therefore, the proposal as contained in the impugned letter dated 19.5.2005 wherein it was proposed that a contractor be appointed was illegal and was quashed. Aggrieved by this judgment, the FCI has filed the present appeal. 13. At the stage of arguments the only argument raised by Mr. C.S. Sinha was that these 37 workmen are not employees of the FCI. He clearly stated before us that he does not raise any other issue before this Court. In support of his contention, Sri Sinha has relied upon 3(three) documents; one is the minutes of the Conciliation proceedings dated 2.12.1986, the second is a communication dated 21.9.1990 and third is an award dated 26.6.1991. He has also stated that the names of the 57 workers who are subject matter of the award are mentioned. In that award it has been stated that those 57 workers who are named in the award are not employees of the FCI. 14. To a specific question put by us to Mr. C.S. Sinha as to whether these 37 workers who are the subject matter of award vide Reference No.10(c) of 1993 dated 17-02-1998, he could not give any clear cut answer whether these 37 workers are part of these 57 workers or not. We are constrained to observe that these 3(three) documents have been sought to be brought into the file without even seeking permission of this Court. They have been attached with the grounds of appeal without even a word in that these were there before the learned Single Judge or not. We are constrained to observe that these 3(three) documents have been sought to be brought into the file without even seeking permission of this Court. They have been attached with the grounds of appeal without even a word in that these were there before the learned Single Judge or not. On perusal of the record of the file of the learned Single judge, we find that these records were not there. A party if it wants to introduce certain documents in appeal must apprise the Appellate Court that it has come into possession of certain documents which are relevant and, therefore, those documents will be taken into consideration. The award which has been now placed on record relates to a reference made in the year 1989 whereas, the reference in the case of these 37 workmen was made in the year 1993. This award was passed on 26.6.1991 whereas the award of the 37 workmen was passed on 17th February, 1998. In case this earlier award related to these 37 workmen, the FCI would have brought it to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal which dealt with the award of the 37 workmen. Obviously this award of 1991 was never brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal which passed the award. This award was not even brought to the notice of the writ Court either in WP(C) No.210 of 1999 and WA No.55 of 2002 and it is too late in the day for the FCI to urge that these 37 workmen are not its employee or that they are not entitled to get the same benefits as those workers employed by the FCI under the DPS system. The documents now relied upon in the writ appeal were not part of the record of the writ Court and these documents cannot even be directly related to the case of the 37 petitioners. 15. We therefore, have no hesitation in upholding the order of the learned Single Judge and we find no merit in the appeal whatsoever. 16. We are constrained to observe that the manner in which the FCI has tried to subvert the judicial process to somehow deny to the workmen what is due to them is wholly unethical. We have already made observations in this regard and, therefore, we impose exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-on the FCI. 17. 16. We are constrained to observe that the manner in which the FCI has tried to subvert the judicial process to somehow deny to the workmen what is due to them is wholly unethical. We have already made observations in this regard and, therefore, we impose exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-on the FCI. 17. It has been stated by Sri A.K. Bhowmik that during the pendency of the writ petition the workmen have been retrenched. For that, they have a separate remedy which they may avail in accordance with law. 18. The FCI is directed to deposit the payment which is due as per the directions given hereinabove within 3(three) months in this Court. 19. Shri Ranjit Ghosh, Secretary, FCI Workers Union, CWC Hapania Depot is directed to file an affidavit within 2(two) weeks from today giving the names of the 37 workers who are in the list of workers as it stood when the original dispute was raised and shall clearly state whether all of them are alive and if they are not alive he shall give the date of death of each of them and disbursal shall be made by the Registrar General of this Court after identifying the workmen or their legal heirs.