The Area Manager Food Corporation Of ... vs Sri Gururaj Shenoy
2024 Latest Caselaw 27434 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Area Manager Food Corporation Of ... vs Sri Gururaj Shenoy on 15 November, 2024

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                          AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

          WRIT APPEAL NO.743 OF 2020 (L-RES)
                        C/W.
          WRIT APPEAL NO.697 OF 2020 (L-RES),
          WRIT APPEAL NO.719 OF 2020 (L-MW)

WRIT APPEAL NO.743 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:

1.   THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/
     MANAGING DIRECTOR
     HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE NO.11
     BARAKAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-110 001

2.   THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
     ZONAL OFFICE, HADDOUS ROAD
     CHENNAI
     REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER

3.   THE GENERAL MANAGER
     THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
     NO.10, EAST END MAIN ROAD
     4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
     BENGALURU-560 011

4.   THE AREA MANAGER
     THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
     371/A, PRESTIGE COMPLEX
     RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSURU-24
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(By SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W.
    MRS. SEEMANDINI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
 -

                             2




     SRI. DINESH RAO N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION
       REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY
       58/1, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD
       KOLKATA-700 023

2.     DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
       "SHRAM SADAN", III CROSS, 3RD MAIN
       YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
       II STAGE, TUMAKURU ROAD
       BENGALURU-560 022
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SMT. RESHMA K. THAMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2020, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.11638/2015, WHEREIN THE ORDER
DATED 21.07.2014 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE - C HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.

WRIT APPEAL NO.697 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:

1 . THE GENERAL MANAGER
    THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
    NO.10, EAST END MAIN ROAD
    4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
    BENGALURU-560 011

2 . THE AREA MANAGER
    THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
    DISTRICT OFFICE
    SRI. M.V. ROAD, THILAK NAGAR
    SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
 -

                              3




3 . DEPOT MANAGER
    THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
    PERAMPALLY, SHIVALLI VILLAGE
    UDUPI-576 101
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(By SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W.
    MRS. SEEMANDINI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. DINESH RAO N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE PRESIDENT
       FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA HEAD LOAD
       AND DAILY WAGES WORKERS UNION
       NO.2-4A, SRI MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA
       ANJARA GRAMA, HIRIYADIKA POST
       UDUPI-576 101

2.    DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
      "SHRAM SADAN", III CROSS, 3RD MAIN
      YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
      II STAGE, TUMAKURU ROAD
      BENGALURU-560 022
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE &
    SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    V/O. DATED 18.07.2023,
    SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.10.2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.19187/2015, BY ALLOWING
THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

WRIT APPEAL NO.719 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:

THE AREA MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
TILAK NAGAR, SIR. M.V. ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
                                              ...APPELLANT
 -

                            4




(By SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W.
    MRS. SEEMANDINI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. DINESH RAO N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI. GURURAJ SHENOY
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     S/O LATE UPENDRA SHENOY
     PARTNER M/S. SHRI GURU TRANSPORT
     NEAR C.W.C. WARE HOUSE CORPORATION
     MANNAGUDDA
     MANGALURU-575 003

2.   THE DEPUTY CHIEF
     LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
     SHARMA SADANA, III CROSS, 3RD MAIN
     YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
     TUMAKURU ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 022

3.   THE PRESIDENT FCI HEAD LOAD AND
     DAILY WAGE WORKERS UNION
     NO.2-4A, SRI MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA
     ANJARA GRAMA, HIRIYADKA POST
     UDUPI-576 113
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSG FOR RESPONDENTS)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.10.2020, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN SO FAR AS W.P.No.11249/2015 IS
CONCERNED BY DISMISSING THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.

      THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
 -

                                    5




CORAM:        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
              and
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                           CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

These writ appeals are filed by the Food Corporation of

India (FCI) challenging the impugned order dated

09.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petitions No.11249/2015 c/w. 11638/2015, 19187/2015.

2. We have heard Shri. Uday Holla, learned Senior

Counsel and Smt.V.P.Seemandini, learned Senior Counsel as

instructed by Shri. Dinesh Rao N, learned counsel for the

appellants in all the appeals, Shri L. Muralidhar Peshwa,

learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Reshma K.

Thammaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in

W.A.No.743/2020, Shri M. Narayana Bhat and Shri Ashok

Kumar Shetty K, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and

Smt. Namita Mahesh, Additional Government Advocate for

respondents No.2 in W.A.No.697/2020 and Shri H. Shanti

Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents

in W.A.No.719/2020.

-

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants that the FCI is a statutory

corporation formed under the Food Corporations Act, 1964

with the purpose of implementing food policy across India. It

operates a vast network of depots where food grains are

stored and distributed. The handling of food grain bags in

these depots is largely managed through a contract labour

system, especially in over 1500 depots out of approximately

1800. Contractors are selected via open tender and they

handle various tasks like loading and unloading bags. The

contractors are paid based on the volume of work performed

and there is no direct relationship between the corporation

and the individual labourers employed by the contractors.

The FCI points out that the studies conducted by Deloitte

show that it is not a continuous activity.

4. It is further submitted that the use of regular

labour, where it exists, has developed due to settlements

between appellants and the respondents, often following

strikes or government interventions. These settlements were

prompted by prohibitory notifications issued between 1989

-

and 2011 that banned contract labour in certain depots.

However, after a Public Interest Litigation in 2014, the

Nagpur Bench exempted these depots from the prohibitory

notifications and the FCI is now seeking formal

denotification. It is further submitted that the FCI's regular

labour in depots falls into three categories:

(i) Departmental Labour System (for short "DLS"),

(ii) Direct Payment System (for short "DPS"), and

(iii) No Work No Pay (for short "NWNP").

5. It is further submitted that the DLS, once the

standard system, has been phased out since 1991 due to its

high costs. Under DPS, workers are paid based on piece

rates and after 2013, the NWNP system was introduced,

where workers are paid only for the days when work is

available. It is contended that the central issue in this case

arises from claims made by labour unions under Rule

25(2)(v)(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 ("Rules 1971" for short). This

Rule mandates that contract workers performing the same

-

or similar tasks as regular workers should receive the same

wages and benefits. This Rule has no applicability in FCI

depots since no directly employed regular workers perform

the same work as contract labourers in the depots in

question and the labour conditions differ between depots.

6. It is also submitted that the respondents filed

claims seeking wage parity for contract workers in certain

depots with those of regular workers in other depots. In

2014, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner allowed these

claims, which led appellants to file writ petitions challenging

these orders. The learned Single Judge dismissed appellants'

petitions in 2020 and upheld the claims made by the

respondent - Trade Union, ordering the corporation to pay

wage differences to the contract workers within three

months. The appellant - FCI is now appealing this decision,

arguing that the order of the learned Single Judge is flawed

and that the application under Rule 25 of Rules 1971, was

inappropriate.

7. It is contended by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants that each depot is a separate

-

entity which employs only one type of labour in each such

depot. Rule 25 of the Rules of 1971, provides for Uniformity

of Wage Pattern between employees in an "establishment".

The definition of establishment under the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("CLRA Act" for short)

would make it clear that each depot of the FCI is a separate

establishment and therefore there is no scope for applying

wage parity between separate establishments under the FCI.

The depot managers are the principal employers in respect

of each depot. The decision of the Apex Court in Food

Corporation of India Workers Union v. Food

Corporation of India and another, reported in (1985) 2

SCC 294, is relied on to contend that the separate depots

under the FCI would be separate establishments where the

Trade of the Corporation is being carried out. In Depots,

where handling of food grains is carried out through contract

labour system, no regular worker is employed for carrying

out the same or similar work.

8. It is contended that out of 2,200 depots of FCI,

Section 10 was imposed on 289 depots. The Labour Ministry

-

issued notification under Section 31 for 226 depots wherein,

these depots were exempted from the applicability of

prohibitory notifications and Section 10 implications. These

notifications were issued establishment (Depot) wise and

these gazette notifications specifically mention the name of

each depot separately thereby confirming their identity as

separate establishments. Further, the Contract labourers are

engaged through the Tender process wherein, a public

notice inviting bids is issued and after thorough process of

examining the bidders (technically & financially) L1 is

declared and the Contract is awarded to them. As per the

MTF & the CLRA, minimum wages are to be ensured by the

Principle Employer. If at all, any further payment is to be

given, it should be paid by the Contractor.

9. It is further contended that under Rule 25 of Rules

of 1971, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has been

conferred with the limited power to determine whether the

work performed by contract workers and regular workers is

of similar nature or not. He has no power to adjudicate the

matter and issue an order for payment of equal wages. A

-

detailed mechanism has been provided under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 for resolution of industrial disputes. As

held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of "General

Manager Food Corporation of India and others v. Union of

India and others" Writ C No.25349 of 2018, the enquiry of

Deputy CLC. under Rule 25 of Rules 1971, can at the best be

treated as conciliation proceedings and if an industrial

dispute is not resolved in such conciliation, the report of

Deputy CLC can be treated as Failure of Conciliation (FOC)

report and the Central Government can refer the matter to

the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

10. The FCI has registration of their establishments

under section 7 of the CLRA Act and has fulfilled all statutory

requirements. The contractor who has obtained licence

under section 12 of the Act has to comply with the licensing

conditions including payment of applicable wages to the

workers. The consequence of non-compliance would be

revocation or suspension of licence. The liability of principal

employer under Sections 20 and 21 of the CLRA Act, is

limited to ensuring amenities to be provided and release of

-

wages by the contractor. The FCI has no supervisory or

disciplinary power in respect of the workers engaged by the

contractor and no action can be initiated against any of the

contract workers engaged through a private contractor.

There was a valid contact between the contractor and FCI to

undertake the work at the agreed rates. In the instant case,

the Contractor is set free from the liabilities for the payment

and FCI has been made liable to pay, which is not as per

any law of the land. Further, in WA No.719/2020, the

Contractor, who is a necessary party in the case, is yet to be

represented before this Court in Writ Appeals.

11. It is further contended that the decision of the

learned Single Judge placed the liability for wage disparity on

FCI rather than the contractor, as per Rule 25 of Rules 1971.

The learned senior counsel relied on external studies,

including those conducted by M/s. Deloitte and a High-Level

Committee, which concluded that the work in FCI depots is

not perennial, thus justifying the use of contract labour. This

view was reinforced by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

(Nagpur Bench) in a PIL judgment dated 20.11.2015. This

-

judgment, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 31.07.2017,

allowed FCI to continue engaging contract labour. The

appellants contend that imposing equal pay for contract

workers would significantly increase FCI's handling costs,

from Rs.70 per metric ton under the contract labour system

to approximately Rs.1,000/- per metric ton under the regular

labour system, placing an excessive burden on the public

exchequer.

12. It is further contended that there are practical

difficulties in determining the identity of contract workers,

their period of engagement and the wages they actually

received, given that contractors are free to hire and rotate

workers across different depots. It is also contended that the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) exceeded his

authority by ordering wage parity. Under Rule 25, the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner can only assess whether the

work performed by contract workers is of a similar nature to

that of regular workers, but he lacks the power to adjudicate

wage claims.

-

13. It is contended that the interpretation of Section

30 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

1970, by the learned Single Judge, outlines the principal

employer's obligations to ensure contract workers are paid

no less than the minimum guaranteed wages. The appellants

assert that the contractor is free to pay more than regular

workers, but this does not obligate FCI to equalize wages.

14. It is also contended that the contract in question

was valid for a limited period and upon its expiration, the

labourers, many of whom were part of the respondent -Trade

Union, would likely have moved on to other employment.

Thus, the order would indirectly create a backdoor entry into

permanent employment, which contradicts settled legal

principles, including those laid out in The Secretary, State

of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others

reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 .

15. In W.A.No.743/2020, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants had produced the further

materials in support of his contentions viz., Judgment dated

15.09.2021, Technical Bid, Acceptance of Handling and

-

transport contract at FSD. Mysuru, Exemption Notification

dated 19.10.2022, Dy.CLC Proceedings, Broad Guidelines for

regulating the service condition of No Work No Pay system

workers and FCI Labour Manual relevant portion.

16. The following judgments were also relied on:-

• Steel Authority of India Limited and Another v. Jaggu and Others, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 658, to contend that where application under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, are filed by the Unions, the primary burden is upon the applicants to establish that the duties discharged by them were same or similar in nature to that of regular/direct employees of the appellants. It is contended that in the instant case, the burden was cast on the FCI to prove that the nature of employment was different.

• Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1, to contend that there is no master and servant relationship between the principal employer and an employee engaged by the contractor, where contract

-

labour is engaged on the basis of permissions granted under the Act.

• Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India, reported in 2016(2) Mh. L.J., 647, is also cited in support of the contention that the appropriate authority should have considered whether the work is of perennial nature and further whether the work is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment.

17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents

however contends that the representation submitted by the

Unions was only for determination of wage rates, holidays,

hours of work etc. Placing reliance on the provisions of Rule

25(2)(v)(b) of the Control Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Central Rules, 1971, it is contended that the Rule specifically

provides for determination of such matters by the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). It is contended that

the explanation to the sub-rule specifically provides that

while determining the wage rates, holidays, hours of work

and other conditions of service under clause (b) the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner shall have due regard to the

wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of

-

service obtaining in similar employments. It is contended

that even if each depot is treated as a separate

establishment, the FCI, which is the primary employer in all

these cases, cannot contend that they can pay wages and fix

conditions of service, which are much lower than those

applicable to labourers doing the same work in other depots.

It is only in exercise of the power of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner to determine the wages and other conditions

of service that the order has been passed and that the

contentions raised in the appeal are devoid of merits. Our

attention is also drawn to the order of the Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner specifically paragraph No.4 thereof,

where the question of nature of work was specifically

considered by the authority with due notice to the principal

employer.

18. It is also contended that the manner of payment

cannot be the determining factor in evaluating the nature of

work. The labourers, regardless of the depot or payment

system, were performing identical tasks, suggesting that

differential pay systems may not be legally or morally

-

justifiable. It is contended that the contract labourers and

labourers engaged under DPS or NWNP systems were doing

the same or similar work. The management of the FCI had

failed to present any uniform policy or criteria to explain why

such different systems were in place across depots.

19. It is contended that inconsistency in FCI's labour

practices is further highlighted by the management's inability

to justify why some depots adopted the contract labour

system while others employed the DPS or NWNP systems.

The unilateral declaration of these systems by FCI, without a

clear, consistent policy, has resulted in significant differences

in wages and working conditions for workers performing the

same tasks. Despite several opportunities provided, the FCI

management failed to explain why such disparities exist,

leading to the conclusion that the wage system applied to

contract labourers is discriminatory and lacks legal or

practical justification. It is also contended that the workers

under the contract labour system are not only performing

the same tasks as those under the DPS or NWNP systems

-

but are also receiving lower wages and fewer benefits, which

is contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work.

20. We have considered the contentions advanced.

We notice that the representation submitted by the Union,

which led to the order of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner, reads as follows:-

"Considering the facts stated above you will kindly realise that it is unethical on the part of the Contractor and the principal employer Food Corporation of India paid a paltry amount to the contract workers, It is also worthwhile to mention that there is no minimum wages fixed by the Government for the Handling and the Ancillary workers in loading/unloading of food grains. The FCI has fixed minimum wage for such job for the workers in other depots.

You being the authority of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 in the Rules made there under we would request you to kindly fix rate of wages, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workers working in the above depots through contractors years together at par with the wages paid to the workers of FCI for similar job. The order may kindly be passed under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) for the depots namely (1) Palakole (2) Amala Puram & (3) K.C. Depot in Andhra Pradesh and depots namely (1) K.G.F (2) Mysore & (3) Kushalnagar in Karnataka Region. If any further particulars in the matter is required it may kindly be intimated to us and will furnish the same on demands.

Section 2 (e) of the CLRA, 1971 reads as follows:-

-

"2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

xxxxx

(e) "establishment" means -

(i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or

(ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on;"

Section 20 of the CLRA, 1971 is as follows:-

"20. Liability of principal employer in certain cases.

- (1) If any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18 or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed.

(2) All expenses incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor."

Rule 25 of the Rules, 1971 reads as follows:-

"25. Forms and terms and conditions of licence.-

(1) Every licence granted under sub-section (1) of section 12 shall be in Form VI.

(2) Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) or renewed under rule 29 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i) the licence shall be non-transferable;

(ii) the number of workmen employed as contract labour in the establishment shall not, on any day, exceed the maximum number specified in the licence;

-

(iii) save as provided in these rules, the fees paid for the grant, or as the case may be, for renewal of the licence shall be non-refundable;

(iv) the rates of wages payable to the workmen by the contractor shall not be less than the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948), for such employment where applicable and where the rates have been fixed by agreement, settlement or award, not less than the rates so fixed;

(v) (a) in cases where the workman employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work:

Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work the same shall be decided by [the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)] 2[***];

(b) in other cases the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be such as may be specified in this behalf by [the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)];

Explanation.- While determining the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of services under (b) above, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) shall have due regard to the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service obtaining in similar employments;

(vi) (a) in every establishment where twenty or more women are ordinarily employed as contract labour, there shall be provided two rooms of reasonable dimensions for the use of their children under the age of six years,

(b) one of such rooms shall be used as a play room for the children and the other as bed room for the children,

(c) the contractor shall supply adequate number of toys and games in the play room and sufficient number of cots and beddings in the sleeping room,

-

(d) the standard of construction and maintenance of the creches shall be such as may be specified in this behalf by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central);

(vii) the licensee shall notify any change in the number of workmen or the conditions of work to the licensing officer,

(viii) the licensee shall, within fifteen days of the commencement and completion of each contract work submit a return to the Inspector, appointed under section 28 of the Act intimating the actual date of the commencement or, as the case may be, completion of such contract work in Form VIA;]

(ix) a copy of the licence shall be displayed prominently at the premises where the contract work is being carried on:]

(x) no female contract labour shall be employed by any contractor before 6.00 a.m. or after 7.00 p.m.:

Provided that this clause shall not apply to the employment of women in pithead baths, creches and canteens and so to midwives and nurses in hospitals and dispensaries.]"

21. The request, therefore, apparently was for a

determination of wage rates, holidays, hours of work etc., as

provided in Rule 25(2)(v)(b) of the Rules of 1971.

22. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, after

considering the contentions of the parties and conducting

site inspections found that inspite of grant of several

opportunities, no policy or criteria to understand why

separate systems are employed in separate depots was

placed on record by the appellants. The order by itself would

show that what was being considered was a petition under

-

Rule 25(2)(v)(b) of the Rules of 1971. It is therefore, clear

that even if the contention that the depots are different

establishments for the purpose of the Rules is accepted,

there is a duty cast upon the authority to take note of the

conditions of service obtaining in similar employments for

the purpose of the determination as contemplated in the

relevant Rule.

23. The contentions of the appellants have been

considered by the learned Single Judge in extenso. The

contractor, who was a party in one of the writ petitions was

also heard and the findings of the authority were also

discussed in detail. It was found that in the light of the

specific provisions of the Act, the contentions of the FCI that

different wages are to be paid to the persons engaged to

discharge the same nature of work, merely because some of

them were engaged through a contractor, was found to be

untenable. The provisions of the Act and the Rules were also

noticed. After considering all the contentions and the

aspects of the matter including the decisions relied on that

the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the authority.

-

24. Having considered the contentions advanced, the

statutory provisions as well as the precedents relied on, we

are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had noticed

that the authority had only directed wage parity and parity

in the matter of conditions of service to be maintained

prospectively from the date of the application. The

consequence would only be that the said conditions and

wages would have to be factored in, when future contracts

are being entered into by the FCI. The FCI, being State

under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot contend

that humane working conditions and wages would not be

made available to workers engaged in its depots albeit

through 'handling contractors'. Having given our anxious

consideration to the contentions, pleadings and materials on

record, we are not convinced that any grounds have been

made out for interference in the judgment of the learned

Single Judge in these intra-Court appeals.

-

25. The appeals fail, the same are accordingly

dismissed.

Pending IAs., if any, in all the appeals stand disposed

of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

cp*