FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Food Corporation of India prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the demand-notice, dated 11-10-1995 contained in Annexure No. 1 and nisi a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2, the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow not to effect the recovery of Rs. One lac and in odd figures besides recovery charges in pursuance to the recovery certificate.

(2.) THE gist of the matter is that certain workmen working under the petitioner's Corporation had raised two industrial disputes in the years 1983 and 1986 claiming regularisation of their services as Class-IV employees. THE appropriate authority referred the relevant dispute Nos. 5 of 1988 and 36 of 1986 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur (Tribunal for the short) for adjudication in accordance with law. Separate awards dated 18-3-1986 and 18-5-1987 were rendered by the Tribunal directing the petitioner-Corporation to regularise the services of the workmen as also to pay them their wages. THEre is no denial to the fact that both the awards were notified in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act. A writ petition was filed by the Food Corporation of India to challenge the validity of these awards but the Court declined to stay their operation. THE obvious inference would, therefore, be that by virtue of Section 17-B of the Act ibid. , the petitioner-Corporation stands the liability to pay the employees' wages from the date of the notification of the awards.

(3.) IN so far as the projected settlement and payment of Rs. 25,000 to the workers is concerned, that itself appears to be done some times in the month of May, 1995. IN any case it was a post-award exercise and certainly beyond the purview of Section 9-C of INdustrial Disputes Act. Taken at its best, it could be propagated as a compromise between the parties and since its execution as well ai existence is disputed by the concerned workmen, there fore, it requires to be established as an issue of fact and obviously this Court would not like to venture into enquiry on facts. The petitioner may if so advised, approach the concerned Tribunal to seek its remedy.