K.K. SURESH & ANR. ETC. versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. on 20 August 2018

[2018] 9 S.C.R. 905

K.K. SURESH & ANR. ETC.

v.

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 10502-10505 of 2011)

AUGUST 20, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDSANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Regularization – Claim forregularization by the appellants working as clerical staff – Plea ofrespondent-employer that appellants were not employees nor theywere ever appointed by respondent in their set up but they wereappointed as clerical staff by one cooperative society and thereforein the absence of any kind of relationship of the employer andemployee between the appellants and the respondent, a relief ofeither absorption or regularization in the services of the respondentdoes not arise – Held: The facts involved in the case at hand clearlyproved that there did not exist any kind of employee-employerrelationship between the appellants and the respondent – Thus, theappellants not granted relief claimed.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The appellants failed to adduce any evidence toprove existence of any relationship between them and therespondent; Second, when the documents on record showed thatthe appellants were appointed by the Head Load Workers Co-operative Society but not by the respondent then obviously theremedy of the appellants, if at all, in relation to their any servicedispute was against the said Society being their employer but notagainst the respondent; Third, the respondent was able to provewith the aid of evidence that the appellants were in theemployment of the said Society whereas the appellants were notable to prove with the aid of any documents that they wereappointed by the respondent and how and on what basis theyclaimed to be in the employment of the respondent except tomake an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was notsufficient to grant any relief to the appellants. [Para 8] [907-G-H;908-A-B]

905

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

A2. So far as the reference made by the appellants to onelitigation decided by the Industrial Tribunal between one set ofpersons and the respondent regarding the status of such personsis concerned, it has no relevance for deciding this case and norit, in any way, helps the appellants for claiming relief against therespondent. It is for the simple reasons that first, the case atBhand arose out of the writ petitions whereas the case relied onarose out of industrial reference decided by the IndustrialTribunal; Second, the facts involved in the case at hand clearlyprove that there did not exist any kind of employee and employerrelationship between the appellants and the respondent; andClastly, there is no parity of any nature noticed on facts in the caseat hand and the case relied on by the appellants. [Paras 9 and 10][908-C-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 10502-10505 of 2011.DFrom the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2007 and 23.08.2007of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal Nos. 479 of2002 and 480 of 2002 and in R.P. Nos. 767 of 2007 and 768 of 2007respectively]

C. U. Singh, S. R. Singh, Brijender Chahar, Sr. Advs., Y.EPrabhakara Rao, J. P. Mishra, P. V. Dinesh, R. R. Kumar, Atulesh Kumar,Swetank Shantanu, Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. Pooja Jha, Ronak Karanpuria,Sumit Sharma, Nagendra Singh, R. Prakash, Ms. Nandita Jha, AjitPudussery, K. Vijayan, Ajeet Singh Verma, C. Paramasivam, RakeshK. Sharma, V. K. Sidharthan, Ms. Sridevi V. S., Sudarsh Menon, BharatFSangal, Ms. Malini Poduval, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are directedagainst the final judgment and order dated 28.06.2007 passed by theHigh Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.479 of 2002 andGWrit Appeal No.480 of 2002 whereby the High Court, by a commonjudgment, dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein. Againstthe said order, the appellants filed review petitions which were disposedof by the High Court by order dated 23.08.2007 in R.P. No.767 of 2007in Writ Appeal No.479 of 2002 and R.P. No.768 of 2007 in Writ AppealNo.480 of 2002.H

2. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in theseappeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra.

3. The appellants claiming to be working as clerical staff filedwrit petitions against the Food Corporation of India-FCI(RespondentNo. 1 herein) in the Kerala High Court and prayed therein that theirservices be regularized on their respective posts on which they wereworking since 1997 in the set up of FCI. In other words, the appellants(petitioners therein) claimed a relief of regularization of their services inthe set up of FCI as regular employees of the FCI.

4. Respondent No.1 (FCI) contested the writ petitions inter aliaon the ground that the appellants are not the employees of the FCI andnor were they ever appointed by the FCI in their set up but they (appellants)were appointed as clerical staff by one Co-Operative Society called“FCI Head Load workers Co-Operative Society”. It was, therefore,contended that in the absence of any kind of relationship of the employerand the employee between the appellants and the FCI, a relief of eitherabsorption or regularization in the services of the FCI does not arise andnor any relief of this nature can be granted to the appellants against theFCI.

5. The Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 16.01.2002,dismissed the appellants’ writ petitions. The appellants felt aggrievedand filed intra court appeals before the Division Bench. By impugnedorder, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orderof the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of these appeals byspecial leave by the unsuccessful writ petitioners.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.

7. In our considered opinion, the writ Court and the DivisionBench were right in dismissing the appellants’ writ petitions and we donot find any reason to differ with the view taken by the two Courtsbelow.

8. In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any evidenceto prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second,when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointedby the FCI Head Load Workers Co-Operative Society but not by theFCI then obviously the remedy of the appellants, if at all, in relation to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Atheir any service dispute was against the said Society being their employerbut not against the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to prove with the aid ofevidence that the appellants were in the employment of the said Societywhereas the appellants were not able to prove with the aid of anydocuments that they were appointed by the FCI and how and on whatbasis they claimed to be in the employment of the FCI except to makeBan averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, notsufficient to grant any relief to the appellants.

9. So far as the reference made by the appellants to one litigationdecided by the Industrial Tribunal between one set of persons and theFCI regarding the status of such persons is concerned, in our view, it hasCno relevance for deciding this case and nor it, in any way, helps theappellants for claiming relief against the FCI.

10. It is for the simple reasons that first, the case at hand aroseout of the writ petitions whereas the case relied on arose out of industrialreference decided by the Industrial Tribunal; Second, the facts involvedDin the case at hand clearly prove that there did not exist any kind ofemployee and employer relationship between the appellants and the FCI;and lastly, there is no parity of any nature noticed on facts in the case athand and the case relied on by the appellants.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no good groundEto take a different view than the one taken by the two Courts below.

12. The appeals are thus found to be devoid of any merit. Theyare accordingly dismissed.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.

F

G

H