ROSHAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DEPOT KAITHAL TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KAITHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are working as contract labourers, (Palledars) with the Food Corporation of India (for short, the Corporation) at its Depot at Kaithal. The Corporation entered into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India Workers Uni6n on 12.4.1991 whereby it was agreed to departmentalise the labourers working in the Depots as per the norms and procedure agreed upon by the Corporation of the Corporation with the Workers Union. On the basis of the norms agreed upon, the Corporation was required to departmentalise 83 workers and employ another 17 workers on piece rate basis in terms of the aforesaid agreement. The Corporation prepared a list of 152 workers for doing the needful. It is stated that this list was prepared on the basis of the information applied by the contractor on physical verification. It was found that 27 workers mentioned in the list were not available for appointment. However, on the basis of that list the Corporation decided to issue appointment letters to 83 workers as departmental employees and to some others as piece rate employees. It is further pleaded on behalf of the Corporation that none of these workers including the petitioners came forward to join duties as they did not accept their appointments. The labourers working in the various Depots of the Corporation went on strike when the agreement was arrived at in April, 1991 and in spite of the aforesaid appointment letters having been issued the strike of the workers continued. The list of the workers prepared by the Corporation was in-disputed by the Workers Union and, therefore, another list was prepared in consultation with the Workers Union. A copy of this list is Annexure RI/1 with the written statement filed on behalf of the Corporation. The claim made in this writ petition is that the petitioners who have longer years of service to their credit and entitled to be departmentalised in preference to some of those whose names appear in the list Annexure RI/1. In para 5 of the written statement, it is pleaded by the Corporation that fresh list Annexure RI/1 was prepared in terms of which induction letters were issued to the employees. The names of some of the petitioners also appear in this list. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the list Annexure RI/1 reflects the correct seniority of the workers at Kaithal depot.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to departmentalise the requisite number of employees, if not already done, strictly in accordance with the list Annexure RI/1 with the written statement. Ordered accordingly.