2018 INSC 0542
           REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.10499 OF 2011
Food Corporation of India          ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Gen. Secy, FCI India Employees
Union  & Ors.                …Respondent(s)
WITH 
CIVIL APPEAL No.10511 OF 2011
Food Corporation of India          ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The Workmen Through the 
Convener & Anr.      …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These appeals are directed against  the final judgment  and
order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras at
Chennai   in   Writ   Appeal   No.3383   &   3382   of   2003   whereby   the
1

High Court dismissed the appeals filed by appellant herein. 
2) In   order   to   appreciate   the   short   controversy   involved   in
these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned  infra .
3) The appellant is a Government of India Undertaking known
as   “Food   Corporation   of   India”   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
FCI”).     The   appellant   is   engaged   in   the   business   of   sale,
procurement, storage and distribution of food grains. 
4) In   order   to   carry   out   their   business   activities,   which   are
spread   all   over   the   country,   the   appellant   has   established   its
Branch   offices   in   every   State.   One   such   Branch   office   is   at
Chennai   (TN).   The   appellant   has   employed   a   large   number   of
employees   to   carry   out   its   business   operations   through   their
Chennai   Branch   office   with   which   we   are   concerned   in   these
appeals.
5) In   the   year   1992,   a   dispute   arose   between   the   appellant
(FCI) and around 955 employees working in the Branch office at
Chennai   as   to   whether  these  955   employees   are   the   employees
of   the   FCI   or   they   are   employed   by   the   contract   labourers’
Society to work in the FCI to carry out their business operations
2

and secondly, whether these 955 employees are entitled to claim
regularization of their services as FCI employees.
6) The   case   of   the   appellant   (FCI),   in   substance,   was   that
these (955) employees were/are never  the employees of the FCI
but   were/are   the   employees   of   a     contract   labourers’   Society
though   working   in   the   establishment   of   the   FCI   for   doing   their
work. It was stated that due to this reason, they are not entitled
to claim the status of the employees of the FCI and nor are they
entitled to claim any regularization of their services in the set up
of the FCI as the employees of the FCI.   It was stated that their
remedy, if any, would be against the contract labourers’ Society
engaged by the FCI but not against the FCI.  
7) On the other hand, the case of the workers’ Union was that
these 955 employees are, in  fact, the  employees of the  FCI  and
being   in   their   regular   employment   since   inception   have   been
discharging their duties regularly for doing the work of the FCI.
It   was   contended   that   they   are   therefore   entitled   to   claim   the
regularization of their services in the set up of the FCI.
8) Since   the   aforementioned   dispute   could   not   be   resolved
3

amicably   between   the   appellant   and   the   workers’   Union,   the
Government   of   India   by   order   dated   06.04.1992   referred   the
said   dispute   to   the   Industrial   Tribunal,   Madras   for   its
adjudication   under   Section   10   of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act,
1947. 
9) The following reference was made for adjudication:
“ Whether   the   action   of   the   management   of   Food
Corporation of India is denying to regularize 955 contract
labourers   engaged   in   management   of   Food   Corporation   of
India,   Godown,   Avadi  through  TVK  Cooperative   Society  in
respect of names as given in Annexure is justified ?  If not,
to what relief they are entitled to?”
10) Both   the   parties   submitted   their   statements   in   ID   No.
39/1992   &   I.D.   55/1993   in   support   of   their   respective   stand
before   the   Industrial   Tribunal.     So   far   as   the   workers’   Union
(respondents herein) is concerned, they adduced the evidence to
prove their case whereas the appellant (FCI) did not adduce any
evidence   to   prove   their   case   despite   affording   them   an
opportunity to adduce.
11) By  awards dated 19.02.1997  & 29.07.1998,  the Industrial
Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workers’ Union
4

and against the appellant. It was held that these 955 employees
are entitled to be regularized in the services of the FCI. 
12) The   appellant   (FCI)   felt   aggrieved   and   filed   writ   petitions
before   the   High   Court   of   Madras   at   Chennai.   By   order   dated
07.08.2000,   the   Single   Judge   dismissed   the   writ   petitions   and
upheld   the   award   passed   by   the   Industrial   Tribunal.     The
appellant   felt  aggrieved   and   filed  intra   court   appeals   before  the
Division Bench. 
13) By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ
appeals   and   affirmed   the   order   of   the   Single   Judge   and   the
awards of the Industrial Tribunal, which have given rise to filing
of the present appeals by way of special leave by the FCI.
14) Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   on
perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   find   no   merit   in   these
appeals.
15) We   have   perused   the   awards   of   the   Industrial   Tribunal,
order of the Single Judge and the impugned order. Mere perusal
of them would go to show that the Industrial Tribunal examined
the   question   in   right   perspective   on   facts   and   the   evidence
5

adduced   by   the   Union   so   also   the   Single   Judge   and   lastly,   the
Division Bench. 
16) It is evident that the Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence
in   its   original   jurisdiction,   rightly   concluded   that   firstly,   the
agreement   with   the   contract   labourer   for   doing   the   work   had
come   to   an   end   in   1991   and   thereafter   it   was   not   renewed;
Secondly, all the 955 workers were being paid wages directly by
the  FCI; Thirdly, the nature of  work, which  these workers were
performing, was  of a  perennial  nature  in  the set up  of the  FCI;
Fourthly,   all   955   workmen   were   performing   their   duties   as
permanent workers; and lastly, no evidence was adduced by the
FCI in rebuttal to prove their case against the workers’ Union.
17) The   writ   Court   then   re­examined   the   issues   so   also   the
Division   Bench   in   the   appeals   with   a   view   to   find   out   as   to
whether the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are factually and
legally  sustainable or  not. The High Court, by  reasoned  orders,
passed   in   writ   petitions   and   appeals   affirmed   the   findings
observing   that   none   of   the   findings   recorded   by   the   Industrial
Tribunal,   which   were   impugned   in   the   writ   petitions   and
6

appeals,  suffer   from   any   kind  of  perversity   or   illegality   so  as  to
call for any interference by the High Court in writ petitions and
appeals.
18) We are inclined to affirm  the concurrent findings because,
in   our   opinion,   none   of   the   findings   though   assailed   in   these
appeals call for any interference.
19) In our opinion, the very fact that the appellant (FCI) failed
to   adduce   any   evidence   to   prove   their   case,   the   Industrial
Tribunal   was   justified   in   drawing   adverse   inference   against
them.   Indeed,   nothing   prevented   the   appellant   from   adducing
evidence  to  prove  the   real  state  of  affairs  prevailing  in   their  set
up   relating   to   these   workers.   It   was,   however,   not   done   by   the
FCI  for  the reasons best known to them. It was not the case of
the  appellant  (FCI) that they  were not afforded any  opportunity
to   adduce   evidence   and   nor   any   attempt   was   made   by   the
appellant to adduce any evidence in the writ petitions or in the
intra   court   appeals   and   lastly   even   in   these   appeals   to   prove
their case. 
20) That   apart,   in   our   opinion,   the   four   findings   of   fact
7

recorded   against   the   appellant   by   the   Industrial   Tribunal   were
based   on   sufficient   evidence   adduced   by   the   workers’   Union.
Indeed,   these   findings   being   concurrent   in   nature   are   binding
on   this   Court   while   hearing   appeals   under   Article   136   of   the
Constitution. 
21) These   findings,   in   our   opinion,   were   equally   relevant   for
answering the question referred to the Tribunal and further they
did   not   suffer   from   any   kind   of   perversity   or   illegality   so   as   to
call for any interference as rightly held by the High Court. 
22) In   the   light   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the   reference   was
rightly answered in favour of the workers’ Union.
23) It   was   then   brought   to   our   notice   that   similar   industrial
reference   alike   the   one   in   the   present   case   was   also   made   in
relation to the FCI Branch at West Bengal and the said reference
was answered in favour of workers’ Union. The matter was then
taken to the High Court unsuccessfully and then carried to this
Court at the instance of the FCI in Civil Appeal No.7452 of 2008
and   the   appeal   was   dismissed   on   20.07.2017   resulting   in
upholding   the   award   of   the   Industrial   Tribunal.     It   was   stated
8

that   the   FCI   then   implemented   the   award,   as   is   clear   from   the
notice on 05.10.2017, in favour of the concerned workers.  Be
that as it may, since we have upheld the impugned order in this
case on the facts arising in the case at hand, we need not place
reliance   on   any   other   matter,   which   was   not   before   the   High
Court.
24) In   the  light   of  the  foregoing   discussion   and  examining   the
issues   arising   in   these   appeals   from   all   angles,   we   are   of   the
considered   opinion   that   the   appellant   (FCI)   failed   to   make   out
any   case,   which   may   call   for   any   interference   in   the   impugned
order.
25) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals fail and are
accordingly dismissed. 
             
                                 ……… ...................................J.
   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                          
          
… ...……..................................J.
         [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018 
9

           REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10502­10505 OF 2011
K.K. Suresh &  Anr.Etc.        ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Food Corporation of India 
& Ors. Etc.          …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These appeals are directed against  the final judgment  and
order   dated   28.06.2007   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   at
Ernakulam   in   Writ   Appeal   No.479   of   2002   and   Writ   Appeal
No.480   of   2002   whereby   the   High   Court,   by   a   common
judgment, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein.
Against   the   said   order,   the   appellants   filed   review   petitions
which   were   disposed   of   by   the   High   Court   by   order   dated
23.08.2007   in   R.P.   No.767   of   2007   in   Writ   Appeal   No.479   of
10

2002 and R.P. No.768 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No.480 of 2002. 
2) In   order   to   appreciate   the   short   controversy   involved   in
these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned  infra .
3) The appellants claiming to be working as clerical staff filed
writ   petitions   against   the   Food   Corporation   of   India­
FCI(Respondent   No.   1   herein)   in   the   Kerala   High   Court   and
prayed   therein   that   their   services   be   regularized   on   their
respective  posts  on  which  they   were  working  since  1997  in  the
set   up   of   FCI.     In   other   words,   the   appellants   (petitioners
therein) claimed a relief of regularization of their services in the
set up of FCI as regular employees of the FCI.
4) Respondent   No.1   (FCI)   contested   the   writ   petitions   inter
alia   on the ground that the appellants are not the employees of
the FCI and nor were they ever appointed by the FCI in their set
up but they  (appellants) were appointed as clerical staff by  one
Co­Operative   Society   called   “FCI   Head   Load   workers   Co­
Operative   Society”.   It   was,   therefore,   contended   that   in   the
absence   of   any   kind   of   relationship   of   the   employer   and   the
employee   between   the   appellants   and   the   FCI,   a   relief   of   either
11

absorption   or   regularization   in   the   services   of  the   FCI   does  not
arise   and   nor   any   relief   of   this   nature   can   be   granted   to   the
appellants against the FCI.
5) The   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court,   by   order   dated
16.01.2002,   dismissed   the   appellants’   writ   petitions.   The
appellants felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeals before the
Division   Bench.   By   impugned   order,   the   Division   Bench
dismissed   the   appeals   and   affirmed   the   order   of   the   Single
Judge, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by special
leave by the unsuccessful writ petitioners.    
6) Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   on
perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   find   no   merit   in   these
appeals.
7) In our considered opinion, the writ Court and the Division
Bench were right in dismissing the appellants’ writ petitions and
we   do   not   find   any   reason   to   differ   with   the   view   taken   by   the
two Courts below.
8) In   the   first   place,   the   appellants   failed   to   adduce   any
12

evidence   to   prove   existence   of   any   relationship   between   them
and   the   FCI;   Second,   when   the   documents   on   record   showed
that   the   appellants   were   appointed   by   the   FCI   Head   Load
Workers Co­Operative Society but not by the FCI then obviously
the   remedy   of   the   appellants,   if   at   all,   in   relation   to   their   any
service   dispute   was   against   the   said   Society   being   their
employer   but   not   against   the   FCI;     Third,   the   FCI   was   able   to
prove   with   the   aid   of   evidence   that   the   appellants   were   in   the
employment of the said Society whereas the appellants were not
able   to   prove   with   the   aid   of   any   documents   that   they   were
appointed by  the FCI  and how  and on  what  basis they  claimed
to be in the employment of the FCI except to make an averment
in   the   writ   petitions   in   that   behalf.   It   was,   in   our   opinion,   not
sufficient to grant any relief to the appellants.
9) So   far   as   the   reference   made   by   the   appellants   to   one
litigation   decided  by   the  Industrial  Tribunal   between   one  set  of
persons   and   the   FCI   regarding   the   status   of   such   persons   is
concerned, in our view, it has no relevance for deciding this case
and   nor   it,   in   any   way,   helps   the   appellants   for   claiming   relief
13

against the FCI. 
10) It   is   for   the   simple   reasons   that   first,   the   case   at   hand
arose out of the writ petitions whereas the case relied on arose
out   of   industrial   reference   decided   by   the   Industrial   Tribunal;
Second, the facts involved in the case at hand clearly prove that
there   did   not   exist   any   kind   of   employee   and   employer
relationship   between   the   appellants   and   the   FCI;   and   lastly,
there  is   no   parity  of   any   nature  noticed  on   facts  in   the   case  at
hand and the case relied on by the appellants.
11) In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no good ground
to   take   a   different   view   than   the   one   taken   by   the   two   Courts
below.
14

12) The appeals are thus found to be devoid of any merit.  They
are accordingly dismissed.    
                   
………...................................J.
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                                    
  … ...……..................................J.
                         [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018 
15

           REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.10530 OF 2011
Food Corporation of India & Anr.        ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Head Load Labour Congress
(Regn.No.336/85) & Anr.  …Respondent(s)
WITH 
CIVIL APPEAL No.7961 OF 2014
Food Corporation of India & Ors.        ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Thrissur Jilla General Mazdoor
Sangh FCI Unit represented by
Its President A.K. Suresh Kumar
&  Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These   two   appeals   namely   Civil   Appeal   No.10530   of   2011
and Civil Appeal No.7961 of 2014 are directed against the final
16

judgment and order  dated 15.02.2010 passed by High Court of
Kerela  in   Writ   Appeal   No.249  of   2009   which  arose   out   of   order
dated   22.09.2009   passed   by   Single   Judge   in   O.P.   No.14360   of
1999   and   against   another   final   order   dated   20.03.2014   passed
by   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   in   Writ   Appeal   No.1746   of   2013
which arose out of an order dated 04.09.2013 passed by Single
Judge in W. P. (C) No.14786 of 2013 respectively. 
2) Though   these   appeals  arise   out   of   an   order   passed   by   the
High Court of Kerala, but we find that these appeals also involve
more or  less the same point which  we have  dealt with in detail
in our order passed today (20.08.2018) in Civil Appeal No.10499
of   2011,   Civil   Appeal   No.10511   of   2011   (Food   Corporation   of
India   and   Ors.   vs.   Gen.   Secretary,   FCI   India   Employees
Union   and   Ors.)   which   arose   from   the   orders   passed   by   the
High Court of Madras. 
3) The   present   two   appeals   appeals   are   filed   by   the   FCI
against   the   Workers’   Union   of   different   branches,   the   only
difference   being   that   the   Civil   Appeal   No.10499   of   2011   and
Civil   Appeal   No.10511   of   2011   relate   to   employees   working   in
17

Chennai Branch Office of FCI, whereas the present appeals (C.A.
Nos.10530/2001   and   7961/2014)   relate   to   employees   working
in depots at West Hills Mavelikkare and Chelakkudy in State of
Kerala and,  therefore, these appeals came  to  be  decided by   the
High Court of Kerala.
4) In   short,  the   facts  of   the  present   two  appeals  are  that   the
writ   petitions   were   filed   by   the   workers’   Union   against   the
appellant (FCI) seeking a mandamus against the appellant (FCI)
directing   them   to   implement   the   award   (Ex.P­1)   passed   by   the
Industrial   Tribunal,   Chennai   also   in   relation   to   the   employees
working in Branch offices at Kerala named above. 
5) The said award (Ex.P­1) directed the FCI to give benefits of
regularization   of   the   workers   in   the   services   of   the   FCI
consequent   upon   abolition   of   contract   laborers   system   in
relation   to   Branch   office   at   Chennai.     This   award   (Ex.P­1)   was
upheld by this Court and attained finality.
6) The   High   Court,     by   impugned   order,   allowed   the   writ
petitions   filed   by   the   workers’   Union   (respondents   herein)   and
directed   the   FCI   to   give   benefits   of   the   said   award   to   the
18

members   of   the   workers’   Union   (respondent   herein),   who   are
working   in   two   depots   at   Kerala   finding   no   dissimilarity   in   two
set of these cases.
7) We   also   do   not   find   any   justifiable   reason(s)   to   deny   the
relief   granted   by   the   High   Court   to   the   writ   petitioners
(respondents   herein)   insofar   as   these   two   appeals   are
concerned.   It   is   more   so   when   no   distinguishing   features   were
pointed   out   by   the   appellants   on   the   facts   or   law,   which   may
persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken
by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   order.   What   were   pressed
into   service   were   only   the   technical   issues   arising   in   the   case
but   we   were   not   impressed   by   such   issues.   They   did   not   go   to
the root of the case. 
8) Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of   the   case   coupled   with   the   judicial   orders   passed   against   the
appellant   in   relation   to   identical   matters,   we   find   no   good
ground to take any other view in the case than the one taken by
Madras High Court in similar case and in the impugned orders.
19

9) In the light of the foregoing discussion, these appeals also
fail and are accordingly dismissed.    
                   
………...................................J.
    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                                    
… ...……..................................J.
          [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018 
20