Food Corporation of India Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 4. it appears that not being satisfied with the order of the hon'ble single judge, f. the food corporation of india for reasons best known to it, filed a writ petition before this court challenging the competence of the assistant labour commissioner to decide the matter on the ground that time period provided under the order of the division bench referred to above, had expired and, therefore, assistant labour commissioner ceased to have the authority to decide being civil misc. 9. at this stage, it is contended by the writ petitioner that the objections raised with regard to the findings recorded on merits by the assistant labour commissioner have not been examined by the regional labour commissioner and therefore, the order is bad.arun tandon, j.1. these two writ petitions raised common question, facts and law and, therefore, are being decided by this court under a common judgment.2. the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 1.5.2009, passed by the regional labour commissioner (central) kanpur with a further prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to not to implement its own order.3. the dispute with regards to categorization of old and genuine workers employed by the earlier contractor, for the purposes of being offered appointment in food corporation of india (f.c.i.) at its depots at various places was subject-matter of consideration in writ petition filed before this court being civil misc. writ petition no. 22652 of 1998. the writ petition was decided under a judgment and order dated 6.9.1998 with a direction that the matter can be more appropriately examined by the assistant labour commissioner (central), kanpur, the parties were directed to appear before him for the purpose.4. it appears that not being satisfied with the order of the hon'ble single judge, f.c.i. mazdoor sangh and f.c.i. workers union filed special appeal nos. 873 of 1998, 874 of 1998, 835 of 1998 and 836 of 1998 before a division bench of this court. the appeals were dismissed under a common judgment and order of the division bench dated 30.11.2006 with a categorical direction that the parties shall appear before the assistant labour commissioner (central), kanpur on 10.1.2007 and no separate notice will be issued to them. the controversy shall be decided within two months, i.e., by 10.3.2007 and no party shall seek any adjournment.5. the assistant labour commissioner (central), kanpur by means of an order dated 20.6.2007 resolved the controversy so raised and found that certain persons were old and genuine workers entitled to be treated as such for engagement with food corporation india. the food corporation of india for reasons best known to it, filed a writ petition before this court challenging the competence of the assistant labour commissioner to decide the matter on the ground that time period provided under the order of the division bench referred to above, had expired and, therefore, assistant labour commissioner ceased to have the authority to decide being civil misc. writ petition no. 46677 of 2007. a division bench of this court decided the matter vide judgment and order dated 11.2.2009 and provided that the petitioner may approach the labour commissioner who shall examine as to whether the assistant labour commissioner has travelled beyond his authority as per the directions given by this court and in case it is found that the assistant labour commissioner has acted within its authority, the objections may be rejected in toto. the labour commissioner was required to decide the objection of the petitioners within one month. in compliance to the order, the petitioners filed an application before the regional labour commissioner. under the impugned order dated 1.5.2009 he has rejected the objections raised on behalf of the writ petitioner. the objection raised by the writ petitioner was confined to the issue that after the expiry of the period provided under the division bench judgement of this court dated 10.1.2007, referred to above, the assistant labour commissioner could not have examined the dispute any further : the contention so raised has been repelled holding that the assistant labour commissioner will not become functus officio merely because the expiry of the period provided. it is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed.6. having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the records, i am of the considered opinion that reasons assigned in the order impugned by the authority are justified. this court may take note of the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of rat vimal krishna and ors. v. state of bihar and ors. : (2003) 6 scc 401 and state of haryana v. p.c. wadhwa, ips, inspector general of police and anr. : (1987) 2 scc 602. these judgments illustrate the lumping of mandatory and directory requirements at one place. if mandatory part is strictly complied, leaving the directory part substantially complied then it has been held that there has been sufficient compliance of the provisions.7. the legal position laid down therein is that the mandatory part has to be complied with strictly while the directory part has to be substantially complied with. in the facts of the case i am of the considered opinion that the directions of the hon'ble high court for the matter being decided by the authority concerned was mandatory in nature while the latter part of the direction providing the time span for such decision was only directory in nature and therefore, if some delay has occurred in passing of the final order by the concerned authority it would not render the order void ab initio inasmuch as there has been substantial compliance of the directory part. i am of the considered opinion that merely because the time fixed by this court had expired, it will not mean that the assistant labour commissioner had become functus officio and he could not decide the matter thereafter.8. the regional labour commissioner has rightly rejected the objections so raised by the writ petitioner.9. at this stage, it is contended by the writ petitioner that the objections raised with regard to the findings recorded on merits by the assistant labour commissioner have not been examined by the regional labour commissioner and therefore, the order is bad.10. the contention has only been stated to be rejected. no appeal against the order of assistant labour commissioner was being heard by the regional labour commissioner nor any such appeal was maintainable. the objections as required to be decided were confined to the directions issued by the hon'ble high court on a writ petition no. 46677 of 2007 filed by the writ petitioners themselves, i.e., as to whether the assistant labour commissioner had travelled beyond the scope of directions issued by this court or not. the petitioner could not have questioned the finding recorded on merits by the assistant labour commissioner by way of objection before the regional labour commissioner. the regional labour commissioner has rightly not entered into the merits of the orders. what is further surprising to note is that petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order passed by the regional labour commissioner before this court.11. writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.12. shri nitin kumar agrawal, advocate and shri b. n. singh, advocate are present on behalf of the respondents.