Man Behal and Others vs Food Corporation of India and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Grievance of the petitioners, as projected in the present writ filed by then under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that they have not been paid the minimun guaranteed wages as per Bipartite settlement dated 5.4.1997. Annexure P-2 despite the fact that they are discharging their duties till date.

Brief facts, as culled out from the petition, reveal that in 1993 there was a contract system prevalent in the respondent Corporation. The labour was employed through the contractors and the payment used to be made to the contractors by the FCI, who would then disburse the same to the employees. On 12.7.1993 the Contractor System was done away with by the FCI and instead in a memorandum of understanding arrived at between the Management of the FCI and FCI Workers Union, it was agreed that a Three Member Committee will be formed by the Workers Union, Thereafter, another bipartite settlement was reached between the FCI Management and FCI Workers u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per this settlement, direct payment system through the three members committee was to continue upto 31.12.1993 which was further to be extended upto 31.12.1994. On 5.4.1995 once again a settlement was reached between the FCI management and the FCI workers Union on 5.4.1995 which was to remain in force for two years w.e.f. 1.1.1995. As per this agreement, only those workers who have been paid wages for nine months were to be allowed to continue. As per clause 3 of the letter, it was again mentioned that only those workers who have been paid wages for nine months during the last 12 months before April, 1995 would be allowed to continue under the prevalent direct payment system and they will be entitled to get the minimum guaranteed wages. The petitioners due to the fact that they were not well and were sick, could not perform their duties during 12 months preceding April, 1995 and were not paid their salaries for nine months. The petitioners were continuing and discharging their duties as is clear from the letters written by the three, member committee to the District Manager. When the recommendations of the District Manager, evoked no interest with the respondent, petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 17413 of 1997 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction that the respondents would take final decision on the recommendations made by the three members committee within two months. The respondents, however, rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of minimum guaranteed wages on the ground that they had not been paid for the last 9 months during the last 12 months. It is this order that has been challenged in this petition.

Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondents have entered defence and opposed the cause of the petitioners. The relief asked for by the petitioners, as mentioned above, has been opposed primarily and in fact only on one ground, i.e., that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as they were not eligible to be engaged on work in Food Corporation of India as per bipartite settlement dated 5.4.1995 w.e.f. January 1, 1995. The petitioners have not worked for nine months and were not paid wages, during the period of 12 months preceding April 1995.

The only question that, thus, needs adjudication in the present case is as to whether bipartite settlement, referred to in the pleadings of the parties, laying down the conditions for minimum guaranteed wages, is such that no exception can possibly be engrafted into the same and, if based upon equity, good conscience and justice, some exception can be had to the strict conditions mentioned in the bipartite settlement, as to whether the petitioners are entitled to have benefit of such an exception.

Clause (d) of bipartite settlement dated 5.4.1995 signed by the FCI Management and representatives of FCI Workers Union does reveal that only those workers who had been paid wages for 9 months during the last 12 months before 1995 will be allowed to continue under the prevalent direct payment system on productivity linked piece rate basis on ''No Work No Pay'' through Three Member Committee and they will be entitled to get the minimum guaranteed daily wages as mentioned above. It is so mentioned in order, Annexure P-6 that came to be passed pursuant to directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 17413 of 1997. Clause (d) of the bipartite settlement, as culled out from Annexure P-2, reads as follows :-

"(d) Only those workers who have been paid wages for 9 months during the last 12 months will be allowed to continue and will be reckoned for MG wages".

It needs to be highlighted here that concededly, the petitioners had earlier been working in the same depot of FCI for number of years but due to the fact that they were not well and sick, they could not perform their duties during 12 months preceding April, 1995 and were not paid their salaries for none months. All the petitioners, it is categorically asserted, were under medical treatment. It has been pleaded in para 7 of the petition that the workers of FCI have to carry the load of 100 Kgs. on their back and while carrying it upto the height of 16'' in order to load them in the transport vehicles and also to put them in the godowns, sometimes due to back pains or other problems they are unable to attend the work. Sometimes, they suffer an injury due to which they can not perform their duties for months together. In the present case also the petitioners suffered various injuries and were under medical treatment. Before and after settlement, petitioners were/are continuing to work. The fact that the petitioners are continuing and are discharging their duties is clear from the letter written by the three members committee to the District Manager which was forwarded to respondent No. 2 through proper channel by respondent No. 3. It is mentioned in the letter aforesaid that the petitioners are continuing in service but they have not been paid their salaries. Translated copies of the letters written by Three Members Committee and forwarded by respondent No. 2 have been attached with the petitioner as Annexure P-4.

We are quite convinced that the petitioners were unable to perform their duties during the crucial period that entitles them to the minimum guaranteed wages as per the bipartite settlement, reference whereof has been made above. We are further convinced that their inability to perform the duties, was due to the fact that they had received injuries while performing the duties and which duties were carried by them for the benefit of the respondent-corporation. It is, thus, a kind of case where an employee in-active service of the employer is unable to perform his duties for some period owing to sickness which too occurred on account of carrying out the duties of the employer only. They were on medical leave. In this scenario, can it be interpreted to say that they were not in service during the crucial period ? We are of the view that to interpret that they were not in service would be reading the language employed in the bipartite settlement in a very dogmatic manner. It is always the letter and spirit of the language employed in any statute, rule, regulation, bye-law or for that matter even settlement, that has to betaken into consideration by interpreting the same. If so interpreted, those who are in the employment and continue to be in the employment even after the crucial period, but could not attend the work due to injuries, in our view, can not be said to be those who may not be entitled to the benefit of clause (d) of the bipartite settlement, reproduced above. Even if one has to go by the language employed in clause (d), "only those workers who have been paid wages for 9 months during the last 12 months will be allowed to continue and will be reckoned for minimum guaranteed wages" it would also mean those who are in the employment but could not carry out their duties being on medical leave or not being paid for the reason that they were injured or sick and that too while carrying out the duties for the benefit of the Corporation. We are quite sanguine that any other interpretation would be wholly iniquitous and would thwart the cause of Justice.

In view of what has been said above, we allow this petition and direct the respondent Corporation to give the petitioners minimum guaranteed wages as are being paid to others, who are covered under clause (d) of the bipartite settlement, Annexure P-2 No orders as to costs.

Petition allowed.