Pratap Singh & Ors vs Food Corporation Of India
2011 Latest Caselaw 2008 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 6th April, 2011.

+        W.P.(C) 14582-637/2006 & CM No.12546/2006 (of the petitioners
         for taking on record additional annexures) & CM No.11459/2006
         (for exemption from filing court fees)

%        PRATAP SINGH & ORS                                  .... Petitioners
                      Through:            Ms. Amita Gupta with Mr. Rahat
                                          Bansal, Advocates.

                                   Versus

         FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA              ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Sukumar Pant Joshi, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                      No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                     No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                    No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioners, being the workers at the Sangrur Godown of the

respondent Food Corporation of India (FCI) have filed this writ petition

seeking direction for re-employment of the petitioners and also for the relief

of implementation of Ishwari Prasad Committee Report, in terms of the

judgment dated 30 th April, 2004 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3474/2003

titled Damodar Bhagat Vs. Food Corporation of India.

2. The counsel for the petitioners on the last date of hearing agreed that

insofar as the first relief of re-employment is concerned, this Court would

not have territorial jurisdiction to grant the same. It was the contention of

the counsel for the respondent FCI on the last date of hearing that the

second relief claimed of implementation of Ishwari Prasad Committee

Report tantamounts to the petitioners workers raising industrial dispute and

which also could not be done in this jurisdiction.

3. The counsel for the petitioners has today with reference to the

judgment in Damodar Bhagat (supra) has contended that this Court had

directed the Ishwari Prasad Committee Report to be implemented by

working out of the requirement of handling labour, not by treating 365 days

as the number of days when work has to be performed and to work out the

number of days, the work has to be performed after deducting the off days.

Further direction for employment of additional handing labour so required

was also issued.

4. The counsel for the petitioners states that the judgment in Damodar

Bhagat has attained finality and though the respondent FCI has

implemented the same qua the Depot in Ludhiana to which the said case

pertained but has not implemented the same qua the Depot at Sangrur to

which the present writ petition pertains. She confines the second relief in the

present case to the said extent only and contends that in view of judgment in

Damodar Bhagat, there is no dispute.

5. The counsel for the respondent FCI states that this Court would not

have territorial jurisdiction to grant the said relief also. On enquiry, as to

how the said relief qua the Depot in Ludhiana was granted in the writ

petition in Damodar Bhagat case, it is stated that the objection regarding

territorial jurisdiction was not taken in that case.

6. The counsel for the petitioners on the contrary shows that the demand

of the workers in Damodar Bhagat case had been refereed by the concerned

Depot/Zone to the Headquarter of the respondent FCI, admittedly at Delhi

and the decision was to be taken at Delhi and it was for the said reason that

the writ petition in Damodar Bhagat case, though pertaining to Ludhiana,

was entertained at Delhi.

7. I am even otherwise of the opinion that the Head Office of the

respondent FCI being at Delhi, the respondent FCI as a state within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, ought not to take such technical

pleas and particularly against workmen, when the issue involved is purely

legal and covered by a judgment of this Court.

8. The respondent FCI in its counter affidavit has stated that the

respondent FCI is implementing the Ishwari Prasad Committee Report in

accordance with the judgment in Damodar Bhagat. The respondent FCI

even otherwise under the law, in view of the judgment in Damodar Bhagat

is required to implement the said Report in accordance with the said

judgment.

9. The petitioners urge that the respondent FCI has however not

computed the requirement for handling labour at the Sangrur Depot as per

the judgment in Damodar Bhagat and if the requirement is so computed,

the respondent FCI would be required to engage additional workforce.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the

direction to the respondent FCI to viz-a-viz Sangrur Depot compute the

requirement for handling labour in accordance with Ishwari Prasad

Committee Report and in accordance with the judgment aforesaid in

Damodar Bhagat. Upon such computation, if any additional workforce is

required, the same be engaged.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) APRIL 06, 2011 bs