F.C.i. Vs. Presiding Officer, C.G.i.T.-cum-labour Court and anr.

- [e.s. venkataramiah and; n.d. ojha, jj.] -- labour law - casual workers - casual workers of fci - parties agreeing before supreme court to terminate their services only in accordance with law and till their termination they will be treated as regular employees entitled to all the fringe benefits but subject to transfer from one depot to another -- we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. it was also stated by the learned counsel that the question of creating any post for the workmen by the food corporation of india does not arise, as legally this may not be permissible and that the corporation may proceed against the workmen only in accordance with law.e.s. venkataramiah and; n.d. ojha, jj.1. in view of the following statements found in the order of the high court:“we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. during the course of arguments, mr sodhi learned senior advocate stated that the services of the workmen will only be terminated in accordance with law, that till their services are terminated, they for all intents and purposes would be treated at par with the regular employees (watchmen) of the corporation and that those workmen would get all the fringe benefits which the regular employees (watchmen) are getting.on the other hand, mr surjit singh, learned counsel for the workmen, accepted the statement of mr n.k. sodhi and further stated that the workmen would not say no if they are sought to be transferred from one depot to another by the corporation. it was also stated by the learned counsel that the question of creating any post for the workmen by the food corporation of india does not arise, as legally this may not be permissible and that the corporation may proceed against the workmen only in accordance with law.in view of what was stated at the bar, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of their statements, these writ petitions be disposed of and to that extent the award of the tribunal be taken to have been modified.”we do not think it is fit case for interference under article 136 of the constitution. special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.