Their Workmen through the Joint Secretary, Food Corporation of India Executive Staff Union. (Appellant) Vs. Employer in relation to the Management of the Food Corporation of India & Anr. (Respondents)

(CIVIL APPEAL No. 4152 OF 2023)

(2JB, KRISHNA MURARI and SANJAY KUMAR, delivered by SANJAY KUMAR, J.)

Facts: The present appeals arise out of the same judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No. 80 of 2019, and therefore are amenable to a conjoined disposal. By order issued under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, referred the industrial dispute raised by the Executive Staff Union of Food Corporation of India, espousing the cause of 21 casual workers, for adjudication. It was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad and taken on file. The tribunal found that the workmen in question were engaged as casual workers by the Food Corporation of India their retrenchment was void, for want of compensation and notice.

Issue: The issue raised herein is as to the regularization in service of the retrenched workmen and the legality of the Award to the extent of granting such relief.

Advocates on behalf of counsel for appellant: Advocate Udita Singh

Advocates on behalf of counsel for respondents: Advocate Ajit Puduserry

Held: The court allowed the appeal filed by the Executive Staff Union of FCI, on behalf of the workmen and set aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, while restoring the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad, subject to the observations in the order passed by this Court in Contempt Petition. The court held that, “Having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditional long ago.”

It was further observed that, “In Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others (2022), this Court pointed out that the phrases ‘approbate’ and ‘reprobate’ mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, as the principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate, that is, a person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. It was noted that an element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle and it is a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party.”