Employers in Relation to the Management of the Food Corporation of India Thr Its Area Manager Vs. Their Workmen Represented by Food Corporation of India Executive Staff Union Th Sri Vijayendra Kumar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/110310
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnJun-12-2017
AppellantEmployers in Relation to the Management of the Food Corporation of India Thr Its Area Manager
RespondentTheir Workmen Represented by Food Corporation of India Executive Staff Union Th Sri Vijayendra Kumar
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w. p. (l) no. 4872 of 2015 … employers in relation to the management of the food corporation of india through its area manager, gaya, bihar ... …petitioner -v e r s u s- their workmen represented by the food corporation of india executive staff executive union, patna, bihar … ...respondent coram: - hon’ble mr. justice aparesh kumar singh … for the petitioner : - mr. nipun bakshi, adv. for the resp.-workmen :-m/s m. m. pal, sr. advocate. & mahua palit, adv. … 02/12.06.2017 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent-workmen. impugned award dated 27.02.2015 (annexure-5) passed in reference case no. 74/2005 by the learned central government industrial tribunal no. 1, dhanbad has answered the reference in favour of the 21 workmen by holding that their termination was totally illegal. they may be allowed to continue in the job without any back wages against the regular post. petitioner food corporation of india is a statutory body constituted under f.c.i act of 1964. the reference made by the central government, ministry of labour was in the following terms:- “whether the action of the management of food corporation of india in terminating the service of workmen sh. deepak kumar and other (list enclosed) w.e.f. 01.09.95 and 01.10.96 instead of regularizing their service is legal and justified. if not, to what relief the workman is entitled.?” the impugned award is practically in two pages. the operative portion thereof is also quoted hereinunder:-“2. this case is received from the ministry of labour & employment on 12.09.2005. after receipt of reference, both parties are noticed. the workman files their written statement on 23.09.2005. but the management after long delay, files written statement on 01.04.2010. document marked by the workman as w-1 series and w-2. the workman also filed three affidavit evidence, he has not been cross examined by the management, due to lapses of management.3. the short point involved in this reference is that, whether the termination of the workman is just and proper or not. the workmen have been terminated by the management without assigning any rhyme or reason.4. on the other hand the workman submitted, they were rendering proper service to the management and they were also availing ltc etc and in support of that they filed photo copies of such documents. they have also filed the photo copies of the attendance sheets of all the workman. as per document available on the record and as per the affidavit filed by the workman, there are many post vacant in category iv.5. workman files many documents, marked as w-1 & w-2 series which shows that they have completed 240 days in the calender year.6. moreover the management has not adduce any evidence, nor turn up since last 7 to 8 dates to pursue and did not choose to cross examine the workmen witnesses.7. considering the facts and circumstances of this case, i holds that the termination of the workman is totally illegal. hence they be allowed to continue in the job without any back wages against the regular post.” petitioner management has enclosed the order sheet at annexure-4 of the reference case which reveals that on several dates, both the management as well as the workmen were absent. the learned counsel for the petitioner-management has contended that workmen remained absent for 12 days after 09.07.2010 and there has been serious laches on their part also. learned senior counsel for the respondent-workmen has on the other hand also contended that the management was unrepresented for 18 consecutive dates since 05.02.2013 till the date of award. learned counsel for the petitioner management has taken a plea that one r.k. dutta was not the counsel representing the management. learned counsel mr. b. m. prasad representing management had died during pendency of the reference in the year 2012. as a result, the management could not make alternative arrangement within time and remained unrepresented thereafter for a number of dates. it is also contended on behalf of the management that the award is cryptic without any reasons and none of the 21 workmen have deposed or filed affidavits in examination-in-chief on their behalf to substantiate their claim for regularization in service. the learned tribunal was under bounden obligation to adjudicate the reference after due consideration and discussion on the rival stand of the parties contained in their written statement and material evidence, which were brought on record by the workmen. in that regard there has been abdication of judicial responsibility by the learned tribunal. learned counsel for the management submits that in similar circumstances, this court in w.p. (l) no. 2735 of 2015 by judgment dated 11.09.2015, remanded the matter for adjudication before the central government industrial tribunal no. 1, dhanbad in reference case no. 75 of 2005. the petitioner management had also remained unrepresented in the said case because of the death of the same counsel mr. b. m. prasad during pendency of the reference. learned senior counsel for the respondent-workmen in reply submits that if the matter is remanded for reconsideration, this court should prescribe a time frame within which the reference itself is to be decided and also fix the number of dates within which the petitioner management and/or respondent workmen would adduce their evidence. cost may also be imposed because of the laches on the part of the management in not prosecuting the reference with due diligence as has also been awarded in w.p. (l) no. 2735 of 2015. considered the submission for learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. there has been considerable lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner-management in prosecuting the reference case before the central government industrial tribunal-i, dhanbad as it also appears from the order sheet enclosed as annexure- 4. it also appears that the respondent- workmen has also equally not been diligent in prosecuting the matter before the learned tribunal. even in that case, the learned cgit no. 1, dhanad was required to pass a well reasoned award after due application of mind dealing with the rival contention of the parties through their written statement and evidence, if any, brought on their behalf. it appears that all the three affidavits filed in examination in chief on behalf of the workmen are not by any of the 21 workmen covered under the reference. there is no discussion on these aspects of the matter while answering the reference. learned single judge of this court in w.p.(l) no. 2735 of 2015, arising out of reference case no. 75 of 2005 in the case of the same petitioner management has after taking note of the ratio rendered by the apex court in the case of union of india vs. ibrahim uddin & anr. reported in (2012) 8 scc148held that recording of reasons while adjudicating valuable rights of parties is the mandate of law. having found that the award was non speaking, it was set aside and remanded to the learned tribunal to decide afresh after giving one opportunity to the management for leading evidence. for the serious laches on the part of the management, a cost of rs. 25,000/ was also imposed. this court is also inclined to take a similar view in the present matter which suffers from same kind of laches on the part of the petitioner management in prosecuting the reference case, though they have taken a plea of the death of the counsel mr. b. m. prasad during the pendency of the reference itself. accordingly the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned central government industrial tribunal- cum-labour court (no.1) dhanbad. the learned tribunal would endeavour to decide the reference preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. the learned tribunal would fix a strict time frame for the petitioner management and the respondent workmen to adduce their witnesses. on account of the serious laches on the part of the petitioner management, a cost of rs. 25,000/- is imposed to be paid within a period of four weeks to the respondent workmen. (aparesh kumar singh, j.) kamlesh/
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (L) No. 4872 of 2015 … Employers in relation to the Management of the Food Corporation of India through its Area Manager, Gaya, Bihar ... …Petitioner -V e r s u s- Their Workmen represented by the Food Corporation of India Executive Staff Executive Union, Patna, Bihar … ...Respondent CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioner : - Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Adv. For the Resp.-Workmen :-M/s M. M. Pal, Sr. Advocate. & Mahua Palit, Adv. … 02/12.06.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent-workmen. Impugned Award dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure-

5) passed in Reference Case No. 74/2005 by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has answered the Reference in favour of the 21 workmen by holding that their termination was totally illegal. They may be allowed to continue in the job without any back wages against the regular post. Petitioner Food Corporation of India is a Statutory body constituted under F.C.I Act of 1964. The reference made by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour was in the following terms:- “Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the service of workmen Sh. Deepak Kumar and other (list enclosed) w.e.f. 01.09.95 and 01.10.96 instead of regularizing their service is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled.?” The Impugned Award is practically in two pages. The operative portion thereof is also quoted hereinunder:-

“2. This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour & Employment on 12.09.2005. After receipt of reference, both parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement on 23.09.2005. But the management after long delay, files written statement on 01.04.2010. Document marked by the workman as W-1 Series and W-2. The workman also filed three affidavit evidence, he has not been cross examined by the management, due to lapses of management.

3. The short point involved in this reference is that, whether the termination of the workman is just and proper or not. The workmen have been terminated by the management without assigning any rhyme or reason.

4. On the other hand the workman submitted, they were rendering proper service to the management and they were also availing LTC etc and in support of that they filed photo copies of such documents. They have also filed the photo copies of the Attendance sheets of all the workman. As per document available on the record and as per the affidavit filed by the workman, there are many post vacant in category IV.

5. Workman files many documents, marked as W-1 & W-2 series which shows that they have completed 240 days in the calender year.

6. Moreover the management has not adduce any evidence, nor turn up since last 7 to 8 dates to pursue and did not choose to cross examine the workmen witnesses.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I holds that the termination of the workman is totally illegal. Hence they be allowed to continue in the job without any back wages against the regular post.” Petitioner management has enclosed the order sheet at Annexure-4 of the reference case which reveals that on several dates, both the management as well as the workmen were absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Management has contended that workmen remained absent for 12 days after 09.07.2010 and there has been serious laches on their part also. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent-workmen has on the other hand also contended that the management was unrepresented for 18 consecutive dates since 05.02.2013 till the date of Award. Learned counsel for the petitioner management has taken a plea that one R.K. Dutta was not the counsel representing the management. Learned counsel Mr. B. M. Prasad representing management had died during pendency of the reference in the year 2012. As a result, the management could not make alternative arrangement within time and remained unrepresented thereafter for a number of dates. It is also contended on behalf of the management that the Award is cryptic without any reasons and none of the 21 workmen have deposed or filed affidavits in Examination-in-Chief on their behalf to substantiate their claim for regularization in service. The learned Tribunal was under bounden obligation to adjudicate the reference after due consideration and discussion on the rival stand of the parties contained in their written statement and material evidence, which were brought on record by the workmen. In that regard there has been abdication of judicial responsibility by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the management submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. (L) No. 2735 of 2015 by judgment dated 11.09.2015, remanded the matter for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 75 of 2005. The petitioner management had also remained unrepresented in the said case because of the death of the same counsel Mr. B. M. Prasad during pendency of the reference. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent-workmen in reply submits that if the matter is remanded for reconsideration, this Court should prescribe a time frame within which the reference itself is to be decided and also fix the number of dates within which the petitioner management and/or respondent workmen would adduce their evidence. Cost may also be imposed because of the laches on the part of the management in not prosecuting the reference with due diligence as has also been awarded in W.P. (L) No. 2735 of 2015. Considered the submission for learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. There has been considerable lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner-management in prosecuting the reference case before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad as it also appears from the order sheet enclosed as Annexure- 4. It also appears that the respondent- workmen has also equally not been diligent in prosecuting the matter before the learned Tribunal. Even in that case, the learned CGIT No. 1, Dhanad was required to pass a well reasoned award after due application of mind dealing with the rival contention of the parties through their written statement and evidence, if any, brought on their behalf. It appears that all the three affidavits filed in Examination in Chief on behalf of the workmen are not by any of the 21 workmen covered under the reference. There is no discussion on these aspects of the matter while answering the reference. Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No. 2735 of 2015, arising out of Reference Case No. 75 of 2005 in the case of the same petitioner management has after taking note of the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. reported in (2012) 8 SCC148held that recording of reasons while adjudicating valuable rights of parties is the mandate of law. Having found that the award was non speaking, it was set aside and remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh after giving one opportunity to the management for leading evidence. For the serious laches on the part of the management, a cost of Rs. 25,000/ was also imposed. This Court is also inclined to take a similar view in the present matter which suffers from same kind of laches on the part of the petitioner management in prosecuting the reference case, though they have taken a plea of the death of the counsel Mr. B. M. Prasad during the pendency of the reference itself. Accordingly the impugned Award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court (No.

1) Dhanbad. The learned Tribunal would endeavour to decide the reference preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Tribunal would fix a strict time frame for the petitioner management and the respondent workmen to adduce their witnesses. On account of the serious laches on the part of the petitioner management, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed to be paid within a period of four weeks to the respondent workmen. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/