MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER, F.C.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W.P. No. 10510 of 1989 and sixteen other C.W.P. Nos. 1832, 2090, 2195, 3793 and 8028 of 1987, Nos. 7252, 7726, 9220, 9650, 9762, 10041, 10042, 12025, 12824 and 15451 of 1989 and No. 5970 of 1990, in which common question of law is involved, that is, as to whether the petitioners in all these writ petitioners are employees of the Food Corporation of India and members of its regular establishment or they are employees of the individual contractors engaged and paid by them, without there being any relationship of master and servant between the Food Corporation of India and the petitioner.

(2.) Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' was constituted by the Act of Parliament, namely, the Food Colorations Act, 1964, with the object of procurement, storage, movement and distribution of foodgrains throughout the country. Its functions are regulated by creating zonal offices. The zones are further divided into regions and it is under the management of separate regional offices that activities of procuring and storing of foodgrains are carried on. The foodgrains are stored in the godowns owned or hired by the Corporation throughout the region and watchmen/Chowkidars/Security Guards are necessarily required for the security of the godowns. The petitioners in all the present writ petitions are these Chowkidars/Security Guards who are engaged by making local arrangement through the agency of contractors, who claim to be regular employees of the Corporation, and not labour engaged by the contractors governed by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The principal claim of the petitioners is that they should be treated and declared as regular employees of the Corporation and held entitled to the salary which the Corporation is paying to its regular departmental employees, on the principle of "equal pay for equal work", and that the Corporation should be restrained from terminating their services.

(3.) The case pleaded by the Corporation in its written statement is entirely different and of denial. According to the Corporation, after procuring the foodgrains, the same have to be stocked in food storage depots for further movement and distribution as per the directions issued by the Government of India from time to time, and as long as the foodgrains are stored, the Corporation requires Security Guards for the protection of its stocks. Since the work of the Corporation is seasonal, sporadic and varied from region to region, the requirement of Security Guards always remains fluctuating. It is for this reason that the Corporation at the district level enters into agreements with agencies of contractors, e.g., Security and Development Services, Jalandhar - (respondent No. 4 in C.W.P. No. 10510 of 1989), for providing security services at its food storage depots and open storage complexes as and when it becomes necessary, along with regular staff of the Corporation. All the petitioners, who are employees of the contractors, had been deployed by the said agencies for rendering security services at the food storage depots of the Corporation. Otherwise the petitioners were never employed by the Corporation and there did not exist any relationship of master and servant between the Corporation and the petitioners. The Corporation makes payment to the contractors for the security services rendered by the said agencies to the Corporation at the agreed rates from time to time and no payment is made by the Corporation direct to any person like the petitioners, who are deployed by the agencies of contractors to work at the food storage depots. Therefore, when persons like the petitioners are working at the food storage depots, they continue to be employees of the respective agencies, that is, contractors, who have deputed them and remain under their control and discipline. These contractors are at liberty to withdraw them at any time without the consent of the Corporation and can also transfer them from one depot to another, or to any other organisation. Further, as per the norms fixed by the Corporation, a total of four Security Guards are required for guarding, 5,000 metric tones of foodgrains stored in a shed/godown/open storage complex. The total Security Guards at one depot include the regular watchmen employed by the Corporation as well as the Security Guards deployed by the agencies of contractors who are called upon to supplement the permanent security staff of the Corporation. Thus, in none of the depots where the petitioners have worked, ten or more Security Guards, including the regular watchmen, are deployed. Hence, each one of these depots is a separate establishment within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It has further been pleaded by the Corporation that it has obtained registration as a principal employer under Section 7(2) of the aforesaid Act of 1970, with effect from 4th August, 1986, from the Central Government, even though no registration was necessary qua agencies like contractors, as the total number of contract laborers deployed by the contractors has never exceeded ten in any establishment of the Corporation. Though no contractor has deployed more than ten persons belonging to its contract labour at any of the establishments of the Corporation and the contractors for that purpose does not require a license under the said Act of 1970, yet as a matter of abundant caution, the contractors do hold a license under Section 12 of the Act of 1970.