Shri Devi Singh v. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Silo, Meerut Road, Hapur

Lucknow in I.D. No.64/2002; Shri Devi Singh versus The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Silo, Meerut Road, Hapur.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 was never appointed by any competent authority and he was engaged as a Labour (Beldar) purely on daily wage basis through contractor. There is no relation of master and servant between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 and the payment was made only on the work basis. The Food Corporation of India has wrongly been arrayed as opposite party before the Tribunal and the management specifically denied that opposite party no.2 was ever employed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that opposite party no.2 engaged as Beldar on

01.06.1983 in Electrical Department of the Food Corporation of India at Hapur on daily wage basis and was being treated as Daily rated/muster-roll worker. Opposite party no.2 was paid fixed emoluments, revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. He was discharging his duties regularly with usual allowances, but was denied the wages illegally and was also not given the benefit of leave and allowances. His services were abruptly terminated w.e.f. 12.12.1985 without following the procedure as enshrined under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947').

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also submitted that opposite party no.2-Devi Singh worked 87 days in the year 1983, 252 days in the year 1984 and 266 days in the year 1985, thus he completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner-Corporation to give notice under Section 25-F of the Act, 1947, but the same was not done, therefore, the oral termination is bad in law and opposite party no.2 is entitled for all the consequential benefits, including reinstatement in service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon an affidavit annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition has submitted that the aforesaid affidavit was filed by opposite party no.2 before the Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Labour through the Desk Officer, New Delhi, wherein he had stated that he will not file any case and whatever case he has filed, he will withdraw the same. He further submits that the aforesaid affidavit was filed by opposite party no.2 before the Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Labour through the Desk Officer, New Delhi, then certainly he has no claim and the Tribunal has committed error while upholding his claim. He has not advanced any other argument except the submissions made herein-above.

6. Heard Shri Kamesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Pragati Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

7. After going through the record, it is found that Shri S.K. Jain, the then District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hapur has filed an affidavit in the Matter of I.D. No.13/1989 before the court of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi, which is available on record at page no.34 of the writ petition, relevant portion of the said affidavit is quoted herein-below: "3. That the claimant used to be engaged on casual job-work basis, as and when he presented himself and some job/work was available for him, on purely daily basis during the period June, 1983 to November, 1985. Thereafter the claimant never presented himself at the office of the F.C.I., Hapur. The claimant, as such, had no "uninterrupted service", as claimed by him."

8. The said affidavit has been filed in the proceedings before the Court and the affidavit of the District Manager has been relied upon by the Tribunal and it is admitted that opposite party no.2 was engaged as Casual Labour, thus Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 will come into play and admittedly services of opposite party no.2 were not terminated by giving notice as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. Opposite party no.2 served for 252 days in the year 1984 and 266 days from January, 1985 to November, 1985 and the management has not disputed the genuineness of its written statement filed by the District Manager in the Matter of I.D. No.13/1989. Therefore, submission made on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 was never engaged by the petitioner - Food Corporation of India is contrary to the affidavit available at page no.34 of the writ petition filed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hapur, who represented the case on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal at New Delhi.

9. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that opposite party no.2 - Devi Singh filed a copy of the written statement signed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hapur in Case No.105/1987; Devi Singh Vs F.C.I. before the Industrial Tribunal, Ghaziabad and in reply to the aforesaid written statement, the management has denied that opposite party no.2 - Devi Singh worked in the office of Food Corporation of India, but admitted that he worked as causal labour (Beldar) purely on daily wage basis from June, 1983 without any appointment letter. It is to be noted that the aforesaid finding has not been controverted by the petitioner nor any document has been filed to show that finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, hence, it is an admitted position that opposite party no.2 was appointed as labour (Beldar) on daily wage basis from June, 1983.

10. In view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that opposite party no.2 had worked for more than 240 days during 1984 and 1985 and thus his case falls in the definition of continuous service under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned award dated 16.08.2002. Hence, no interference is warranted therein.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anupam S/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lucknow in I.D. No.64/2002; Shri Devi Singh versus The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Silo, Meerut Road, Hapur.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 was never appointed by any competent authority and he was engaged as a Labour (Beldar) purely on daily wage basis through contractor. There is no relation of master and servant between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 and the payment was made only on the work basis. The Food Corporation of India has wrongly been arrayed as opposite party before the Tribunal and the management specifically denied that opposite party no.2 was ever employed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that opposite party no.2 engaged as Beldar on

01.06.1983 in Electrical Department of the Food Corporation of India at Hapur on daily wage basis and was being treated as Daily rated/muster-roll worker. Opposite party no.2 was paid fixed emoluments, revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. He was discharging his duties regularly with usual allowances, but was denied the wages illegally and was also not given the benefit of leave and allowances. His services were abruptly terminated w.e.f. 12.12.1985 without following the procedure as enshrined under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947').

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also submitted that opposite party no.2-Devi Singh worked 87 days in the year 1983, 252 days in the year 1984 and 266 days in the year 1985, thus he completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner-Corporation to give notice under Section 25-F of the Act, 1947, but the same was not done, therefore, the oral termination is bad in law and opposite party no.2 is entitled for all the consequential benefits, including reinstatement in service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon an affidavit annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition has submitted that the aforesaid affidavit was filed by opposite party no.2 before the Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Labour through the Desk Officer, New Delhi, wherein he had stated that he will not file any case and whatever case he has filed, he will withdraw the same. He further submits that the aforesaid affidavit was filed by opposite party no.2 before the Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Labour through the Desk Officer, New Delhi, then certainly he has no claim and the Tribunal has committed error while upholding his claim. He has not advanced any other argument except the submissions made herein-above.

6. Heard Shri Kamesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Pragati Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

7. After going through the record, it is found that Shri S.K. Jain, the then District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hapur has filed an affidavit in the Matter of I.D. No.13/1989 before the court of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi, which is available on record at page no.34 of the writ petition, relevant portion of the said affidavit is quoted herein-below: "3. That the claimant used to be engaged on casual job-work basis, as and when he presented himself and some job/work was available for him, on purely daily basis during the period June, 1983 to November, 1985. Thereafter the claimant never presented himself at the office of the F.C.I., Hapur. The claimant, as such, had no "uninterrupted service", as claimed by him."

8. The said affidavit has been filed in the proceedings before the Court and the affidavit of the District Manager has been relied upon by the Tribunal and it is admitted that opposite party no.2 was engaged as Casual Labour, thus Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 will come into play and admittedly services of opposite party no.2 were not terminated by giving notice as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. Opposite party no.2 served for 252 days in the year 1984 and 266 days from January, 1985 to November, 1985 and the management has not disputed the genuineness of its written statement filed by the District Manager in the Matter of I.D. No.13/1989. Therefore, submission made on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party no.2 was never engaged by the petitioner - Food Corporation of India is contrary to the affidavit available at page no.34 of the writ petition filed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hapur, who represented the case on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal at New Delhi.

9. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that opposite party no.2 - Devi Singh filed a copy of the written statement signed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hapur in Case No.105/1987; Devi Singh Vs F.C.I. before the Industrial Tribunal, Ghaziabad and in reply to the aforesaid written statement, the management has denied that opposite party no.2 - Devi Singh worked in the office of Food Corporation of India, but admitted that he worked as causal labour (Beldar) purely on daily wage basis from June, 1983 without any appointment letter. It is to be noted that the aforesaid finding has not been controverted by the petitioner nor any document has been filed to show that finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, hence, it is an admitted position that opposite party no.2 was appointed as labour (Beldar) on daily wage basis from June, 1983.

10. In view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that opposite party no.2 had worked for more than 240 days during 1984 and 1985 and thus his case falls in the definition of continuous service under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned award dated 16.08.2002. Hence, no interference is warranted therein.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anupam S/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench