Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Food Corporation Of India ... on 8 August, 2022
Item no. 07
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam
And
The Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
MAT 953 of 2022
Food Corporation of India & Ors.
vs.
Food Corporation of India Workers' Union & Ors.
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay
For the Respondents : Mr. Soumya Majumdar
Heard on : 08.08.2022
Judgment on : 08.08.2022
T.S. Sivagnanam J.:
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the interim order dated
25.04.2022 passed in WPA 2704 of 2022. Identical orders were put to
challenge before us in APO 58 of 2022 and by order dated 21.07.2022
the appeal was disposed of by refusing to interfere with the order
impugned therein which is identical that of the impugned order before
us. For better appreciation the entire order is quoted hereinbelow:-
"This intra-court appeal is directed
against the order dated 5 May, 2022 passed in
th
IA No.GA/1/2022 in WPO/969/2022. The said writ
petition was filed by the first respondent
herein, namely, FCI Workers Union challenging
the decision taken by the appellant namely,
Food Corporation of India in the matter of
appointing handling contractors for handling of
various items dealt with by the Food
Corporation of India (FCI). It appears that
along with WPO/969/2022 there are four other
writ petitions and the learned Single Bench, on
being prima facie satisfied that the first
respondent/writ petitioner, has made out a
prima facie case, granted an order of interim
stay of the operation of the notice inviting
tender dated 1st February, 2022 till the
disposal of the writ petition. Aggrieved by
such order, the FCI is in appeal before us.
Mr. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted
that there was no interim order which was
granted at the relevant point of time i.e. when
the notice inviting tender was issued by FCI
and also when FCI was in the process of
entrusting the Siliguri and Malda depots of the
FCI on the contract of labour system and even
during the pendency of the writ petition, as
such, no specific change of service condition
of the workmen belonging to the writ petitioner
union arose which prompted them to move for
interim orders during the final hearing stage
of the writ petition. Further it is submitted
that FCI is running solely on the subsidy of
the Government and within the limit of the said
subsidy it has to carry out its functions
keeping constant vigil to minimise the
unproductive financial loss in handling of
foodgrains. Further, Mr. Chattopadhyay contends
that manning of depots is basically an
administrative matter wherein various factors
have to be taken into consideration so as to
optimise the use of labour and cut down the
cost of handling of foodgrains and reducing the
burden of the subsidy which is required to be
provided to the FCI by the Government of India.
Further, the learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that as one labour system can only
be followed in a particular depot, hundred per
cent transfer becomes necessary and the entire
labour work in Siliguri and Malda depots of FCI
ought to be transferred on introduction of
contract labour in order to utilize such labour
optimally by transferring them to any depot as
per operational requirement. Further, the
contract labour cannot be deployed along side
DPS labour as it will lead to violation of
Section 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971.
The learned counsel has also referred to
various documents which have been appended to
the said application. Therefore, it is
submitted that there is no reason for granting
interim order and on account of interim order
the activities which are required to be
performed by the FCI have been hampered. The
learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that Siliguri and Malda Depots of FCI
are not notified depots under Section 10 of the
Contract Labours (R & A) Act, 1970 and,
accordingly, FCI is within its power to appoint
handling contractor for the said depots as per
the policy decision of the Food Corporation of
India.
Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner would submit that
the interim order was granted on 5 th May, 2022
and has been in force for more than two months
and the writ petition has been taken up for
hearing by the learned Single Bench and the
main arguments on the side of the writ
petitioner concluded and the argument of Mr.
Chattopadhyay appearing for the FCI is on the
verge of being concluded and in all
probabilities the arguments will get concluded
tomorrow (22.7.2022). Therefore, it is
submitted that no special circumstances have
been brought out by the appellant for
interfering with the impugned order. Further,
the learned counsel would submit that in all of
the conditions which have been raised by the
appellant to this appeal, appropriate
submissions have been made before the learned
Single Bench and when the writ petition itself
is to be finalised, this intra-Court may not be
entertained.
After elaborate hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, we are of the considered view
that it would not be appropriate to entertain
this appeal filed by the FCI against an
interlocutory order passed by the learned
Single Bench which has remained in force for
over a period of two months. That apart, the
parties to the litigation are in the verge of
concluding arguments and it is the submission
of the learned counsel for the workers union
that if the counsel for the appellant concludes
his argument tomorrow (22.7.2022), reply
submission would be made and the matter will be
concluded by tomorrow (22.7.2022).
In the light of the above, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
However, we are making it clear that we have
not expressed anything on the merits of the
matter and leave it open to the parties to
agitate all their grounds, both factually and
legally before the learned single Bench in the
pending writ petition.
With the above observations, the appeal
(APO/58/2022) stands disposed of.
With the disposal of the appeal, the
connected application for stay (IA No.
GA/1/2022) also stands disposed of."
Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the respondent in
WPA 969 of 2022 submitted that when the respondents were about to
conclude their submission an affidavit has been filed by the
management. Furthermore, due to certain inconvenience the Court
sitting had to be deferred. In any event, we feel that no interference is
called for in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Bench which
has been considered by us in the aforementioned order.
For such reasons, the appeal stands disposed of while declining
to interfere with the impugned order without expressing anything on
merits of the matter. We leave it open to the parties to agitate all
grounds both factual and legal in the pending writ petition.
(T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
RP/Amitava (AR. CT.)
