CGIT KANPUR LCA-168/1998 ORDER DATED- 01-09-2026 on 1 September 2026

**Order**

**Dated: 01.09.2026**

The present application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was registered as LCA No. 168 of 1998 upon being moved on behalf of the claimants/applicants. On 06.04.1998 on behalf of applicants an application has been moved entitled as praying therein following relief:

The applicant, who are workers of the industrial unit of M/s Food Corporation of India, M/s Food Corporation of India, Harduaganj Warehouse Collection, Kasimpur, Aligarh, are entitled to receive the benefits of the amount mentioned in the attached table from the Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India, Harduaganj Warehouse Collection, Kasimpur, Aligarh / District Manager, M/s Food Corporation of India, Aligarh / Regional Manager, M/s Food Corporation of India, Agra / Senior Regional Manager, M/s Food Corporation of India, Lucknow. The Honorable Court is requested to calculate the amount due to the applicants/ workers and oblige them by getting it paid to the applicants/ workers.

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>श्रमिक का नाम व पता</th> <th>पद</th> <th>6.11.86 से 30.6.87 तक 900/-<br/>1.7.87 से 31.12.87 तक<br/>1250/- प्रतिमाह की दर से देय<br/>धनराशि</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1. पदम सिंह पुत्र मेघ सिंह, गाँव धिमरपुर, डा० सासनी जनपद महामाया नगर</td> <td>अनु०लेवर</td> <td>14,550.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2. राज कुमार पुत्र श्यामलाल पिलखुआ डा० खास, जनपद अलीगढ़</td> <td>पल्लेदार</td> <td>14,550.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3. वीरपाल पुत्र तुला राम सावितगढ़, डा० करौरा जनपद बुलन्दशहर</td> <td>अनु०लेवर</td> <td>14,550.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4. रामजी लाल पुत्र श्यामलाल गाँव पिलखुआ, पोस्ट खास जनपद अलीगढ़</td> <td>पल्लेदार</td> <td>14,550.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

*An* **01.9.26**

<table border="1"> <tr> <td>5. सुरेश पुत्र पाती राम<br/>नगला उमोद डा०<br/>रुहेरी जनपद<br/>महामाया नगर</td> <td>अनु०लेवर</td> <td>14,550.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6. चितर सिंह पुत्र सौदान<br/>सिंह गाँव गौडा, पोस्ट<br/>खास जनपद अलीगढ़</td> <td>पल्लेदार</td> <td>14,550.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>कुल + देय ब्याज धन</td> <td>87,300.00</td> </tr> </table>

A demand is being made for the calculation of the aforementioned amount in accordance with the conditional stay order dated 18.05.1987, passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 9720/87 filed by the employers against the judgment dated 06.11.1986 delivered in Adjudication Case No. 90/80.

Against that the opposite party filed written statement which is read as under:

1. 1. The present claim application have been submitted by applicants under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is totally incorrect, highly disputed, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

2. 2. According to law only individual applicant can move an application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and group applicants can move their claim application under Section 33 C(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid VALID GROUNDS, the present claim application of the applicants are highly disputed, bad in law, dues without jurisdiction and not legally maintainable under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. 4. It should be summarily rejected by the Honourable Central Government Labour Court Kanpur.

5. 5. In the present claim application, the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India Lucknow has been made a party which is not a employer of the applicants.

6. 6. The present claim application filed by the applicants suffers from the laches of non-joinder of party and misjoinder of necessary party.

7. 7. The applicants are not a "Workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as there is no relationship of employee and employers between the applicants and Food Corporation of India be during the alleged periods from 6-11-1986 to 31-12-1987.

8. 8. Applicants had never worked during the alleged periods from 6.11.1986 to 31.12.1987 in Food Storage Depot HarduaGanj, Aligarh.

9. 9. It is therefore, necessary for the interest of Natural justice, fairness, fair play and equity, that the Honourable Central Government Labour Court Kanpur should examine all the applicants in person which is very essential for this case, otherwise, the whole claim application of the applicants will become highly disputed, doubtful, fabricated, infructuous, imaginary and without any foundation.

10. 10. Any proceedings to compute the monetary benefits shall be therefore beyond the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kanpur under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 according to the law declared by the Apex Court of India.

11. 11. In fact, the applicants did not demand of Wages in their claim application before the Honourable Central Government Labour Court Kanpur. Hence, on this ground, the present claim application has become infructuous, bad in law, disputed, Without jurisdiction and not maintainable under section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

01.9.26

1. 12. Applicants have not submitted any details/particulars in support of their claims before the Honourable Central Government Labour Court Kanpur.

2. 13. In absence of such details/particulars, the present claim application has become infructuous, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

3. 14. Applicants have never been in the employment of Food Corporation of India (FSD) HarduaGanj, Aligarh.

4. 15. All the allegations in this respect are emphatically denied as incorrect.

5. 16. It is clear and specific that in Kanpur absence of any documentary proof or particulars in the claim application of the applicants, the Honourable Central Government Labour Court Kanpur cannot admit this false allegations of the applicants.

The applicant filed documentary evidence which is read as under:

1. 1. Award of CGIT Delhi dated 06-11-86 under Reference Case No. 90/80.

2. 2. Conditional Stay Order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 18-05-87.

3. 3. Letter No. F. 6/5/76-IRD of the Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, dated 12.8.78.

4. 4. Revised Pay Scale Chart of the Food Corporation of India.

5. 5. Letter No. F 68 (18)/79-IR of the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Lucknow, dated 26.9.1986.

6. 6. Letter No. F 6B (13)/79-IR/Vol.-II of the above-mentioned office, dated 22.4.87.

7. 7. Letter No. F-6B 13/79 IR/Vol. II of the above-mentioned office, dated 22.09.87.

8. 8. Statement of Monthly Payable Wages of the workers of Food Corporation of India Depot/Godown, Harduaganj, Aligarh.

9. 9. Letter dated 2.5.97 sent to the employers by the National Mazdoor Congress (INTUC), District Council, Aligarh on behalf of the workers.

10. 10. Notice dated 3.6.97 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow.

11. 11. Notice dated 9.7.97 issued by the above-mentioned authority.

12. 12. Application/Petition dated 23.10.97 sent by INTUC on behalf of the workers.

13. 13. Notice dated 19.8.97 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, recommending prosecution. (All enclosures are attached herewith, including Stay Order dated 18.5.87 and Show Cause Notice, etc.)

14. 14. Fresh Notice dated 23.12.97 re-issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow.

15. 15. Settlement/Agreement dated 5.3.78 executed between the employers and the workers' representatives in the presence of Shri Nem Singh Chauhan, Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), regarding direct payment. This document also bears the signature of workers' representative Shri Vijay Singh, who is the plaintiff/claimant worker in the lawsuit application.

In rebuttal the opposite party filed documents which are read as under:

1. 1. Photocopy of Award dated 06.11.1987 of CGIT, New Delhi in ID Case No. 90/80.

2. 2. Photocopy of Award Dated 6-11-1986 given by the CGIT-Cum-Labour Court New Delhi in ID Case NC. 90/1980. (8 Pages).

3. 3. Photocopy of Stay order dated 18.5.1987 passed by the Honourable High court of Allahabad in Writ Petition NC.9720/1987.

4. 4. Photocopies of Pages Nos. 163, 164, 165 & 166 of the Writ Petition No. 9720/1987 (List of workers).

5. 5. Photocopy of List of workers submitted by the FCI Workers Union to the District Manager, FCI Agra alongwith Letter dated 21-8-1984.

10/21.9.26

As per the pleadings of the parties, the main question is whether the applicants are entitled to the "Dhanrashi" (monetary amount) claimed in the petition. According to the petition, which was filed against the opposite party, the applicants—Shri Padam Singh S/o Megh Singh, Raj Kumar S/o Shyam Lal, Veerpal S/o Tula Ram, Ram Ji Lal S/o Shri Shyam Lal, Suresh Chandra S/o Pati Ram, and Chittar Singh S/o Saudan Singh—are demanding Rs. 14,550/- per person, amounting to a total of Rs. 87,300/-. This petition has been filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act before this Tribunal.

The opposite party filed its written statement, denying the demands of the applicants as mentioned in the claim statement, and raised several legal objections. The first objection raised is that the present claim application has been submitted by the applicants under Section 33-C(2), which is bad in law and without jurisdiction. The opposite party argued that an individual application can be moved under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, whereas a group application must be moved under Section 33-C(5) of the ID Act.

Although the opposite party noted that the applicants comprise seven persons, only six are mentioned above. For reference, the legal provision under Section 33-C(2) reads as follows:

*(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months: Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.*

Furthermore, Section 33-C(5) of the ID Act reads as follows:

*(5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen.*

The applicants claim the aforementioned "Dhanrashi" based on the judgment in Suit No. 19/80, against which Writ Petition No. 9720/87 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court, resulting in a conditional stay order dated 18.05.1987. The opposite party contended that the applicants were not parties to the said suit. They further stated that they have complied with the order of the Hon'ble High Court and have already paid all the laborers as directed.

In paragraphs 36, 37, and 38 of their written statement, the opposite party specifically stated that the applicants have taken shelter under Award No. 90/80. However, that suit was filed by the Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Workers Union before the CGIT, New Delhi, along with a list of 301 laborers who belonged to the Food Storage Depot at Harduaganj, Aligarh. Against the Award dated 06.11.1986 in ID Case No. 90/1980, the Management of FCI had filed Writ Petition No. 9720/87 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Hon'ble High Court passed an order dated 18.05.1987, and in compliance with this order, the management paid wages to all 301 laborers as per the list furnished by the Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Workers Union.

81.9.26

The names of the applicants were not mentioned in the Award for ID Case No. 90/1980, nor were they included in the list of 301 laborers furnished by the Union before the CGIT, New Delhi. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim the benefit of the award.

Although the applicants mentioned Award No. 90/80, the judgment dated 06.11.1986, the subsequent Writ Petition, and the High Court order dated 18.05.1987 in their claim petition, they filed no rebuttal against the pleadings of the opposite party. Furthermore, no supporting documents were filed by the applicants before this Tribunal.

Both parties filed written arguments. However, the applicants were absent on several dates. Consequently, this Tribunal issued a notice to the applicants by an order dated 01.04.2026. Despite the service of notice, the applicants failed to appear in further proceedings.

Regarding the documentary evidence on record, the applicants filed the order of the CGIT, New Delhi, dated 06.11.1986, and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 18.05.1987 to support their claim statement, along with other documents mentioned above.

To support their case, the applicants examined Shri Muneshwar on 05.10.2007. It is important to note that Shri Muneshwar is not an applicant in this case. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he worked for the opposite party's institution under a contractor from 1980 to 1986. In his cross-examination, he stated:

*"It is incorrect to say that I did not work at the Harduaganj Depot from 06.11.1986 to 31.12.1987. It is incorrect to say that this lawsuit relates to termination from service. I did not receive any appointment letter. I am not aware that 301 laborers have already been paid by the Delhi Court. I am not aware that Award No. 90/80 is pending in the Allahabad High Court; I have no knowledge of it. I am not aware whether I have filed a chart in my claim. It is incorrect to say that my salary or wages are not outstanding against the Food Corporation of India. The application submitted in court bears my signature, not your signature."*

The opposite party examined Shri G. S. Gautam, who supported the written statement in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, he stated that pursuant to the High Court's order regarding CGIT Delhi ID Case No. 90/80, payments were made to the 301 workers for the period following May 18, 1987.

After perusing the oral evidence, this Tribunal notes that Shri Muneshwar is not an applicant. The witness for the opposite party supported the written statement and specifically stated that the applicants had never worked during the alleged period from 06.11.1986 to 31.12.1987 at the Food Storage Depot in Harduaganj, Aligarh. Hence, no employer-employee relationship exists between the opposite party and the applicants.

The opposite party cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoors Sangh Vs. State of Bihar and others (1989 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) page 465), which held:

*"Several factors may indicate the relationship of master and servant. The presence of all or some of the factors, such as the right to select for appointment, the right to appoint, the right to terminate the employment, the right to take other disciplinary action, the right to prescribe the conditions of service, the right to control the employee's manner and method of the work, the right to issue directions, and the right to terminate*

va 61.9.26

may have to be considered to determine the existence of the relationship of workman and employer."

Further, he filed case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. Singh and others Vs. Presiding Officer and other reported in (1988) 3 SCC 457 is read as under:

**Labour Law Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sections 33-C(2) and 10(1) Where workman's claim under Section 33-C(2) cannot be disposed of unless his right to such claim is first adjudicated on a reference under Section 10(1), his application under Section 33-C(2) not maintainable.**

Further, he filed case law of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in **Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture Vs. P.O. Central Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur and others** reported in 1999 (82) FLR 123 is read as under:

**Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33-C (2)-Applications-Moved with a view to get the settlement implemented-Order allowing the application could therefore be passed under Section 33-C (2)-Which cannot be faulted on any ground.**

**Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33-C (2) Object and scope of-Summarised as-That if claim involves adjudication of disputes-it can not be resolved under Section 33-C (2)-But if claim in nature of execution is made then Section 33-C (2) is available.**

Further, he filed case law of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in **District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Allahabad and another Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur and others** reported in 2007 (114) FLR 444 is read as under:

**Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33-C(2)-U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6-H-Scope of Highly disputed claim of workman Cannot be adjudicated under section 6-H or section 33-C(2)-Which are nature of execution.**

In contrast to the pleadings and oral evidence of the opposite party, the applicants failed such dues are not paid by O.P. No calculation sheet was provided to show how the applicants are entitled to the claimed dues based on the judgment. The opposite party has clearly demonstrated that they obeyed the orders of both the CGIT, New Delhi, and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad by paying all dues to the workers listed by the Union.

Furthermore, the applicants have continuously failed to appear before this Tribunal to prosecute their matter, despite the explicit service of notices issued on 01.04.2026.

Consequently, the claim application filed by the applicants under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lacks absolute legal merit and is hereby Dismissed.

No order as to costs.

(Presiding Officer) 01.9.2026