Food
Corporation of India Workers Union Vs. Food Corporation of India & Anr [2002] Insc
185 (5 April 2002)
S. Rajendra
Babu & P. Venkatarama Reddi P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
The
petitioner is a Trade-Union of workmen which is seeking to enforce the claim of
its members employed in 223 depots of Food Corporation of India ('FCI' for short) under the Direct
Payment System (hereinafter referred to as 'DPS') for payment of wages at par
with departmental workmen of FCI. It is contended that the direct payment system
having been given a go-bye for good and direct relationship of employer and
employee having been established between the labour force governed by DPS and
the Management, the Respondent-Corporation is under an obligation to accord the
same treatment to them as is being given to the departmentalised/absorbed
workmen. It is submitted that the nature, type of work and the modalities of
carrying out the handling work by the DPS workers and the departmental workers
in the various depots of FCI is the same and therefore denial of equal wages
and other service benefits to the DPS workers is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In short, this petition under
Article 32 is based on the plea of equal pay for equal work.
A writ
to direct the Respondent-Corporation to grant same wages, allowances, status
and other benefits to the handling workers employed on DPS in 223 depots as are
available to departmentalised handling workers. Certain other ancillary reliefs
are sought for. A comparative chart showing the wages and other fringe benefits
available to these two categories of workers has been given in Exhibit P-8. In
the course of the arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner has endeavoured to develop her argument founded on equal pay for
equal work by seeking support from various decisions of this Court. Much
reliance has also been placed on the Award dated 1.4.1991 of the National
Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, rendered in the context of similar relief claimed
by DPS workmen of 55 depots.
In the
Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is not disputed
that the nature of work done by the DPS workers and the departmental workers is
substantially the same. But, it is contended that the quantum of work done by
the handling Mazdoor under DPS is not identical to the turnover of work of
departmental labour. In this context, it is pointed out in paragraph 5 that the
work load varies from depot to depot and even within the same depot there are
variations in working pattern in the light of such factors as volume of
procurement, off-take of food grains from the godowns etc. The seasonal
character of food handling operation in various depots has also been stressed.
While asserting that in view of the large variations in the working pattern and
work load, the contract labour system is better suited to the needs of FCI, it
is pointed out that on account of the agitation launched by the Workers union,
the Management had no alternative but to agree for abolition of contract labour
system and introducing DPS or 'no work no pay' system in lieu of contract labour.
Reference has been made to various settlements arrived at between FCI
Management and FCI workers union in this connection.
The
initiative in this regard was taken pursuant to the understanding reached for
the first time on 23.5.1973, according to which the departmental labour system
as well as the direct payment system could be maintained depending on the local
requirements. It is stated that except at Ghevra depot, nowhere departmental labour
as well as DPS labour is engaged simultaneously in the same depot/godown. It is
pointed out that as against 223 depots mentioned in the writ petition, 215
depots are governed by DPS and 7 depots in A.P.
State are actually functioning under no
work no pay system. It is claimed that each depot is and is being treated as
separate establishment and is being run by the respective labour systems viz.,
departmental, DPS, no work no pay. Only in Ghevra depot, the dual labour system
is existing. It is reiterated that DPS system of labour has been introduced in
various depots pursuant to mutual understanding between the Management and labour
unions and their terms and conditions are regulated as per mutual negotiations
and settlements.
Giving
the details of mode of payment in paragraph 9, it is stated as follows :-
"Under this system the payment is made to the Labourers on the basis of
above schedule of rates agreed between FCI Management and the Petitioner Union.
These workers are piece-rated workers and whatever the work done by them on the
basis of Schedule of Rates, the payment is released to them subject to minimum
guaranteed wages which is at present Rs.107/- of Handling Labour per day. The
Schedule of Rates and Minimum Guaranteed wages are revised after every 2 years
on the basis of the increase in the All India Consumer Price Index, as per
settlement signed between FCI Management and Petitioner Union." It is then
pointed out that the FCI workers union has already raised an industrial dispute
before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi, wherein the issue of parity of
wages has been focussed.
Moreover,
it is stated that individual DPS labourers of about 46 depots have filed
petitions in Delhi High Court seeking the same relief. As regards the award of
National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay,
pertaining to 55 DPS depots, it is stated that the award was challenged in the
Delhi High Court both by the Workers union and the Management and the writ
petitions were disposed of by the High Court on 1.8.1995 in terms of the
settlement dated 1.11.1994. Therefore, the said award does not hold the field.
On the
above grounds, which were reiterated in the course of arguments by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, it is contended that the
principle of equal pay for equal work has no application here. It is stressed,
the need and legitimacy of direct payment system has been recognised by all
concerned and the system itself has come into vogue as a result of negotiations
and agreements between the Union of Workmen and the Management.
Having
regard to the pleadings of the parties and the factual controversy involved, we
are of the view that it would not be appropriate for this Court to record its
conclusions on merits. In order to give effect to the principle of equal pay
for equal work, which is no doubt a constitutional obligation implicit in
Article 14, we have to enter into the factual arena and embark on an
investigation of disputed facts such as the work load and the working pattern
in various depots of the Food Corporation of India. The mere fact that the
qualitative nature of work performed by DPS workers and the departmental
workers is the same, is not conclusive. Other aspects highlighted in the
counter-affidavit having a bearing on the volume and duration of work in the
depots have to be gone into. Incidentally, the justification and expediency of
continuing the Direct Payment System which has been recognized by various
settlements has to be looked into. A comparative study of the working pattern
in various depots, the overall job requirements and the overall effect it will
have on the body of workmen as a whole and the Management, are all matters that
may be relevant to consider. It is not a case of mere application of a legal
principle to the admitted or undeniable facts. But, it depends on concrete
facts brought out in evidence. When the same issue is being agitated by the
petitioner-union by raising an industrial dispute, it is all the more
inappropriate for this Court to make an adjudication on merits in a writ
petition filed under Article 32. The award of the National Industrial Tribunal
on which reliance was placed virtually stands superseded by the settlement
arrived at between the parties culminating in the disposal of the writ petition
challenging the said award in terms of such settlement.
We,
therefore, decline to grant any relief under Article 32 of the Constitution. We
leave it to the petitioner to agitate the issue before appropriate Forum. The
writ petition is therefore dismissed. The dismissal of this petition shall not
be construed as an expression of any view on the merits of the respective
contentions.
..J.
(S. Rajendra
Babu) .J.
(P. Venkatarama
Reddi) April 5, 2002.
Back