2023 (8) TMI 984 - SC - Indian Laws

Retrenchment from services - Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna, retrenching the services of S/Sh. Sashi Shankar and 20 others (list enclosed) is justified and legal? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to? - HELD THAT - In UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. VERSUS N. MURUGESAN AND ORS. 2021 (10) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT , this Court pointed out that the phrases approbate and reprobate mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, as the principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate, that is, a person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. It was noted that an element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle and it is a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party. In the case on hand, the management of FCI filed a writ petition challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal but having secured conditional interim relief therein, the management chose to implement the impugned Award though it was under no compulsion to do so - the management of FCI, be it for whatever reason, chose to acquiesce with and accept the Award in its entirety, though it made such compliance subject to the result of the writ petition. Its somnolence, thereafter, in taking timely measures for expeditious disposal of the writ petition compounded the matter further, leading to the passing of 18 long years, which conclusively weighed with the learned Judge and, in our considered opinion, rightly so. A party to a proceeding cannot be permitted to challenge the same but thereafter abide by it out of its own free will; garner benefit from it; get the opposite party to effectively alter its position; and then press its challenge after the passage of a considerable length of time. Having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditional long ago. In the light of their absorption in regular service, these workmen, who may have otherwise opted for employment opportunities elsewhere, altered their position and remained with the FCI. Having placed them in that position, it is no longer open to the management of FCI to seek to turn back the clock - the position obtaining for over two decades cannot be altered, by accepting the legally weighty but essentially pedantic view taken by the Division Bench, ignoring the factual position. The appeal filed by the Executive Staff Union of FCI, on behalf of the workmen, is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of retrenchment of 21 casual workers by Food Corporation of India (FCI).
2. Entitlement of the workmen to reinstatement and back wages.
3. Regularization of the services of the workmen.

Summary:

1. Legality of Retrenchment:
The Tribunal found that the 21 workmen were engaged as casual workers by FCI at Patna and their retrenchment was void as they were neither given notice nor paid compensation, violating Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal directed reinstatement and regularization in Class-IV posts with 75% back wages from the date of retrenchment (10.05.1990).

2. Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Wages:
The Jharkhand High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the workmen had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months and were terminated without complying with mandatory provisions. The High Court noted that the management did not distinguish these workmen from others who had been regularized. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Award in its entirety.

3. Regularization of Services:
The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court modified the order by quashing the Award's direction for regularization, stating that such relief could not be sustained as there was no term of regularization in the reference of the industrial dispute. However, the direction to pay 75% of back wages remained untouched.

Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court noted that the management of FCI did not contest the reinstatement and payment of back wages before the Division Bench. The management's appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it had voluntarily implemented the Award, including the absorption of workmen in regular service, and allowed the situation to continue for 18 years. The appeal by the Executive Staff Union of FCI was allowed, restoring the order of the learned Judge and the Award of the Tribunal. The Division Bench's judgment was set aside, and the appeal by the management of FCI was dismissed. Pending I.A.s were closed, and parties were to bear their own costs.