Food Corporation Of India vs Central Government Industrial ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4661 Cal

02.08.2023              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
 DL-252                CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   (PP)                      APPELLATE SIDE
                        WPA 16535 of 2006
                              with
              IA No.CAN 1 of 2010 (Old No. CAN 451 of 2010)
                              with
                        IA No.CAN 2 of 2020
                               with
                        IA No.CAN 3 of 2020
                               with
                        IA No.CAN 4 of 2021
                               with
                        IA No.CAN 5 of 2021

                       Food Corporation of India
                                Vs.
               Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors.


                   Mr. Arunava Ghosh,
                   Mr. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay
                                             ....for the petitioner.
                   Mr. Shamik Chatterjee,
                   Mr. Aditya Bikram Mahata,
                   Mr. Sahil Kabir
                                      ....for the respondent no.2.

Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the writ petitioner/Food Corporation

India (FCI), submits that the nature of job for which

the contractor, one Tarapada Ghosh was employed by

FCI was not perennial. Since 1990, the contract with

storing agents has been abolished/terminated

throughout West Bengal. The work for which

Tarapada Ghosh was engaged for was taken over by

the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the agreement

with Tarapada Ghosh was terminated way back in

April, 1990. Hence, there can be no question of

continuing with the purported engagement of 254

labourers till 1993.

He distinguishes the cases relied on by Mr.

Chatterjee primarily on the ground that nature of job

performed by the members of the respondent no.2-

union was not perennial. There was no principal

employer and employee relationship under section 10

of the 1970 Act. The respondent no.2 only performed

their work under Tarapada Ghosh, if at all and there

was no question of engaging several contractors

under which the members of the respondent no.2-

union were working. Therefore, it could not be said

on the facts of the case that the engagement of the

contractor/intermediary under Section 10 of the 1970

Act was a camouflage or in the nature of sham.

He relies on several judgments reported in

(2007) 5 SCC 755 (U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. &

Anr. vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Ors.), (2019) 7

SCC 440 (Director, Steel Authority of India

Limited vs. Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union)

and (2002) 4 SCC 609 (Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai vs. K. V. Shramik Sangh & Ors.) to

contend that absorption under section 10 of the 1970

Act is not as a matter of course and several criteria

have to be fulfilled prior to such absorption may be

directed by the industrial adjudicator.

Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel also

appearing on behalf of FCI submits that there is no

question of a principal employer and contractual

employee relationship coming under the purview of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Mr. Chattopadhyay is permitted to file a revised

notes of argument for FCI. He is also permitted to

produce the contract between FCI and the said

Tarapada Ghosh, for adjudication of issues in the

present proceedings.

Let the matter appear for further consideration

under the same heading "Heard-in-Part" on August

9, 2023.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this

order duly downloaded from the official website of

this Hon'ble Court.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)