GS Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Shramik Sanghthan vs GM FCI on 24 February 2026

1. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226001

2. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Civil Lines, Kanpur(U.P)-208001

.....Manag

ement

**Award**

**24.02.2026**

Central Government, MOL, vide notification no. L-22011/2/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 26/03/2019 has referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. This award arises in response to the reference made by Government of India, Ministry of Labour department in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The Reference is stated as follows:- *[Handwritten signature]* *24/2/26*

**"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Kanpur is not releasing the dues payable to Shri Bhola paswan retired on 31.07. 2016 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief, the applicant concerned, is entitled to?"**

The averments made by claimant workman may be summarized as follows:- Claimant workman Bhola Paswan S/o Late Janki Paswan worked on the post of loader in Food Corporation of India at Chanderi depot. He superannuated on 31.07.2016. Claimant workman alleged that for the period 01.04.1998 to August 2012, workman was not paid incentive for loading as per the guidelines of the management for the mentioned period. It is further mentioned that all records of the mentioned period are under the possession of the management. The grains brought at establishment through trucks whose weight was near 5 man. Claimant workman along with his group did loading and unloading and for that there was prescribed incentive and workman was paid that incentive in the past. But for unknown reason in June 2016 an amount of Rs 62,000/- was deducted from his salary. And no written order was given in the mentioned matter. The workman was superannuated on 31.07.2016 and as per rule within month CPF amount should be paid to the worker. In this matter, the manager, CPF, wrote a letter to the SRM / AGM / Area Manager of the management. Workman's CPF amounts to Rs 11,94,014/- which was held by the management for 3 years and paid only in 2019. The claimant workman is entitled to get 10% interest on the delayed payment of CPF. It is prayed by claimant workman in his claim that the management should be made payment of all above mentioned dues along with the interest for which claimant workman is entitled.

The averments made in written statement by O.P management may be summarized as follows:- 24/7/21

Applicant Shri Bhola Paswan has no locus standi under section 2(S) or Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such claim can not per take the character of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. That is it submitted that all **"MATERIAL FACTS"** must be pleaded by the party in support of the case setup by him. Since the object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead Evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact, hence, will entailed dismissed of the claim petition.

2. That it is well settled Law by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar V/s Ramaratan Babu and others (2004(7) Supreme Court Cases Page 181 ):- wherein it has been held as under:- "..... it is equally well settled that there is distinction between **"Material Facts"** and **"Particular"** Material facts are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the party in support of the case setup by him either to prove his cause of action or defence. Particulars, on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the Party.

That it is settled Law by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagdish Singh V/s Punjab Engineering College (2009 Vol. 121 F.L.R Page 984): Wherein it has been held as under:- " The relief granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the frame work of the Law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced Sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions.

3. That it is submitted that as per Rules the payments have already been made to all applicants including Applicant Shri Bhola Paswan.

✓ 27/2/28

4. That alleged Union has not submitted any documentary proofs/particulars in support of his claim as stated in para-2 of the Statement of claim before the Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal Kanpur.

Wherein it has been held that the Burden therefore, was on the workman to prove and establish the aforesaid facts by leading Cogent and reliable Evidence. He was required to place documentary Evidences in support of the same.

5. That the claims of the alleged Union are also bad in law for not providing any documentary evidences with the claim statement. It is settled Law the responsibility to substantiate the claim with evidence is on the applicant and since no evidence has been supplied, the Claim Statement of the Union ought to be rejected on this ground alone.

6. That it is settled Law by the Honourable High Court of Calcutta in the case of Indian Petronas (PO Limited and Union of India and others (2016 Vol. 150 F.L.R Page 370): Wherein it has been held that the ONUS entirely and exclusively lies on the applicant who seeks an affirmative in the form of a juridical order of its Contention.

The rule is best Expressed in the maxim " ei qui affirmat nonei qui negat incumbit Probation' , i.e. the Burden of Proving fact is on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue and not upon him who denies it.

7. That it is also well settled Law by the Honourable High Court of Calcutta in the Calcutta Tramways Supervisor Association and State of West N Bengal (1990 Vol. 60 F.L.R Page 183): Wherein it has been held as under:- "Incentive on work above normal work, it is not an implied conditions of Service."

If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter.

29/2/26

There is a deliberate concealment or suppression of material facts on behalf of the petitioner or it transpires that the facts have been so twisted and placed before the court, so as to amount of Concealment, the writ court is entitled to refuse to entertain the Petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter."

It is well settled that whenever allegations as to malafides have been leveled, sufficient particulars and cogent, materials making out prima facie case must be setout in the Pleadings."

8. That no such demand was raised by alleged applicant relating to the matter specified in the schedule annexed to the present reference order within any reasonable period of time and even if any such demand was made it was after inordinate delay and might have given rise to an individual dispute and did not amount to an "Industrial Dispute" within the meaning of section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Because, the claims of the alleged Union in respect of "Releasing of dues" are neither entertainable nor maintainable under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Because, the present dispute raised by the alleged Union before the Honourable Tribunal Kanpur are absolutely baseless, vague and false.

It is prayed on the behalf of management that the present reference order issued by the Central Government is without jurisdiction, incorrect, disputed, infructuous, bad in law and alleged application/ Union is not entitled to any relief / Compensation whatsoever on the basis of the Present reference order.

After filing of written statement, Tribunal has given so many opportunities to file rejoinder to applicant but when applicant not filed our rejoinder the tribunal closes the opportunity to file rejoinder on 18.02.2026.

As per claim statement and reference the main question in this reference the O.P is not releasing the dues of Shri Bhola paswan retired on 31.07.2026 is just, fair and legal? As requested by claimant in claim statement as above not releasing 29/2/26

the incentive to him when incentive is fixed and he received prior but after June 2016 that amount was deducted without any written order. But claimant has not filed oral/documentary evidence that is due as incentive are requested in claim statement.

Despite multiple opportunity of filing rejoinder but applicant is failed to file our rejoinder and any evidence in support our claim statement.

Since the claimant failed to prove as alleged in our claim statement.

Accordingly the reference is answered in negative. Claimant is not entitled for any relief Date: 24.02.2026 Presiding Officer

24.02.2026 CGIT, Kanpur

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 24.02.2026 Officer

Presiding 24.02.2026 CGIT, Kanpur