Food Corporation of India vs Collector and Others

The petitioner, Food Corporation of India prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the demandnotice, dated 11101995 contained in Annexure No. 1 and nisi a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2, the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow not to effect the recovery of Rs. One lac and in odd figures besides recovery charges in pursuance to the recovery certificate.

The gist of the matter is that certain workmen working under the petitioner''s Corporation had raised two industrial disputes in the years 1983 and 1986 claiming regularisation of their services as ClassIV employees. The appropriate authority referred the relevant dispute Nos. 5 of 1988 and 36 of 1986 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur (Tribunal for the short) for adjudication in accordance with law. Separate awards dated 1831986 and 1851987 were rendered by the Tribunal directing the petitionerCorporation to regularise the services of the workmen as also to pay them their wages. There is no denial to the fact that both the awards were notified in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act. A writ petition was filed by the Food Corporation of India to challenge the validity of these awards but the Court declined to stay their operation. The obvious inference would, therefore, be that by virtue of Section 17B of the Act ibid., the petitionerCorporation stands the liability to pay the employees'' wages from the date of the notification of the awards.

The petitioner''s grouse is that during the pendency of the proceedings a settlement was arrived at with the Food Corporation of India Workers'' Union and in pursuance thereof the employees were paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000 each. In consideration thereof they had agreed to withdraw all their claims. It was further contended that in recognition of the said settlement a letter was written by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur on 491995 to the Collector, Lucknow (Annexure No. 3) requesting him to stay the recovery proceedings, but it appears that no heed was paid to his request and hence, the petition.

It may be worthwhile to note that the operation of the aforesaid letter of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, dated 491995, stands stayed by the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3698 of 1995. Otherwise also it''s a doubtful proposition as to whether the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur could stop the implementation of the awards which had since become final and an effort to seek stay of those awards had already been declined by this Court.

In so far as the projected settlement and payment of Rs. 25,000 to the workers is concerned, that itself appears to be done some times in the month of May, 1995. In any case it was a postaward exercise and certainly beyond the purview of Section 9C of Industrial Disputes Act. Taken at its best, it could be propagated as a compromise between the parties and since its execution as well ai existence is disputed by the concerned workmen, therefore, it requires to be established as an issue of fact and obviously this Court would not like to venture into enquiry on facts. The petitioner may if so advised, approach the concerned Tribunal to seek its remedy.

The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner offered to deposit the disputed amount before this Court provided its bank Accounts are released. It would be in the fitness of the things if the petitioner makes the deposit and seeks remedy either from the authority which had freezed the operation of the account or the authority going ahead with the ''recovery proceedings.