CHANDITALA DANKUNI FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA SHARAMIK KALYAN SAMITY & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- This writ petition has been filed claiming right to be appointed as employees in the regular establishment of Food Corporation of India, a body corporate established under Sec. 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The following reliefs prayed for:

(2.) That the petitioners who are members of petitioner No. 1 were appointed as labourers under respondent No.10, Tarapada Ghosh, who was an agent of Food Corporation of India in terms of the statute namely the Food Corporation of India Act, for loading and unloading of food-grains in the godown and Railway sidings. Claiming their right for permanent absorption, the petitioners moved one writ application C.O. 2800(W) of 1995 but this writ application was dismissed by A.K. Ganguly, J. by his order dated 9th Nov., 2000 on the ground of non- joinder of Food Corporation of India, who was considered by Court as necessary party in the proceeding. The petitioner brought the said matter under Appeal No. MAT 4137 of 1997 unsuccessfully. The appeal was dismissed by the order dated 26th March, 2001 by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners moved this writ application impleading the Fund Corporation of India as a party in the writ proceeding as well as incorporating other new facts as happened during the intervening period when earlier writ proceeding was pending. In this petition the petitioners have claimed regularisation of their service in the establishment of Food Corporation of India, on alleging, interalia, that for last 17 years, they were working and necessary recommendations were made for their absorption by the Minister of State, Food and Consumber Affairs, Government of India. A letter dated 3rd Aug., 1997 issued by one Dr. Ratan Kr. Singh, Additional Private Secretary in the said Ministry also has been annexed to contend that 500 workers similar to the petitioners should be reinstated. Petitioners further have referred a letter dated 15th July, 1997 of one Captain Jai Narain Prasad Nishad, the then Minister for Non-convention Energy Sources, wherein a request was made for sympathetic consideration of the representation of the President of Chanditala Dankuni F.C.I. Shramik Kalyan Samity, West Bengal regarding re-instatement of 500 members of the Samity. Another two letters, one of Sri Amitabh Verma, Private Secretary to the Minister of Food and Consumer Affairs dated 24th July 1997 and other of Mr. H.L. Prasad dated 1st Oct., 1997 also have been annexed in the writ petition in support of their claim. This writ application has been opposed by the respondents denying all the allegations as made. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners never were employed by Food Corporation of India for their service. The petitioners as best were the worker under Tarapada Ghosh, who was nothing but a statutory agent in terms of the agency as granted in his favour allowing him to distribute goods of Food Corporation of India through his agency to the respective customers by maintaining his own godown and by clearing the goods from Railway siding. The respondents further contended that no appointment letter was issued by the Food Corporation of India appointing such workers as casual labourers or workers of the organization. Referring to the contention of the writ application and annexure at page 105, Annexure 'E', it has been further contended that only 22 names have been mentioned by said statutory agent, Tarapada Ghosh in his letter dated 7.10.92 certifying their employment as labourers to load and unload the food-grains of Food Corporation of India for the last 5 years only. So far as the other names of the 64 candidates, whose names are mentioned in the Annexure 'E' at page 106, it is contended that the said letter was not even signed by the concerned agent. It is contended that the employee engaged by a statutory agent cannot claim any right to be absorbed in the Food Corporation of India. It has been urged vehemently that the statutory agents when their such agency were terminated, moved the writ petition, claiming their right to continue as agent, on urging the fate of different labourers engaged by them and this application ultimately faced dismissal by the Apex Court of India holding, inter alia, that Food Corporation of India had the right to terminate statutory agency. The provision of statutory agency ultimately was abolished and the statutory agent failed to succeed in the writ petition even up to the Apex Court, on point of validity of such abolition. In terms of the judgment of the Apex Court, ultimately long back statutory agency was abolished on 30th April, 1990 in respect of agency of respondent no. 10 Tarapada Ghosh. Judgment of the Apex Court holding the validity of such abolition of statutory agency is already a reported judgment passed in the case Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Jagannath Dutta & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 1494. It is contended vehemently that after abolition of agency of respondent no. 10, State of West Bengal has been granted right to distribute the goods. After long 2 years of abolition of such statutory agency, respondent no.10, recommended the names of 22 persons certifying their works under him, which is absolutely a false statement. The certificate of respondent No. 10 at page 107, prima facie, a document based on false statement as issued in the year 1992, that is after 2 years of abolition of statutory agency of Tarapada Ghosh, since, the said gentleman had given a certificate that the said 22 persons worked for the last 5 years that is from the year 1987 to 1992 though his assignment as agent was terminated in the year 1990. Once, the statutory agency was abolished, there was no question of giving any work to said agent by Food Corporation of India after the year 1990. It has been strongly contended that since petitioners never worked being in the roll of the Food Corporation of India and since their appointment was private appointment by the statutory agent, Tarapada Ghosh, in his godown, for the purpose of loading and unloading of the materials from Railway siding as well as from the godown, the Food Corporation of India, would not bear the responsibility of them by regularising their service. Further it is contended that regularisation is not a mode of appointment. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, a very short question involved in the matter as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be regularised as employee in the establishment of Food Corporation of India on the admitted facts by them that they were engaged by a statutory agent, respondent No. 10. Learned Advocates for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon several judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P&T Department through Bharitiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 2342, Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ann Vs. G. Mohamed Ameenuddin & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 2202 : [1999(5) SLR 201 (SC)], Hindustan Machine Tools & Ors. Vs. M. Rangareddy & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 3287 : [2000(6) SLR I (SC)], Niadar & Ann Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 112 and in the case Inder Pal Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 648.

(3.) Learned Advocate of the petitioner further relied upon the meaning of the word 'Agent' by referring the Salmonds Jurisprudence and Law of Corporations to contend that the workers employed by statutory agent Tarapada Ghosh became the direct employee of the principal authority i.e. Food Corporation of India as soon as the statutory agency was abolished.