Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. versus HEAD LOAD LABOUR CONGRESS (REGN. NO336/85) & ANR.

Decided
20 August 2018
Judges listed
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 909 · 2018 INSC 720
Also cited as
  • (2018) 17 SCC 92 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

These two appeals namely Civil Appeal No.10530 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No.7961 of 2014 are directed against the final judgment and order dated 15.02.2010 passed by High Court of Kerela in Writ Appeal No.249 of 2009 which arose out of order dated 22.09.2009 passed by Single Judge in O.P. No.14360 of 1999 and against another final order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1746 of 2013 which arose out of an order dated 04.09.2013 passed by Single Judge in W. P. (C) No.14786 of 2013 respectively.

p. 910, margin B

2

Though these appeals arise out of an order passed by the High Court of Kerala, but we find that these appeals also involve more or less the same point which we have dealt with in detail in our order passed today (20.08.2018) in Civil Appeal No.10499 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.10511 of 2011 (Food Corporation of India and Ors. vs. Gen. Secretary, FCI India Employees Union and Ors.) which arose from the orders passed by the High Court of Madras.

p. 910, margin C

3

The present two appeals appeals are filed by the FCI against the Workers’ Union of different branches, the only difference being that the Civil Appeal No.10499 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No.10511 of 2011 relate to employees working in Chennai Branch Office of FCI, whereas the present appeals (C.A. Nos.10530/2001 and 7961/2014) relate to employees working in depots at West Hills Mavelikkare and Chelakkudy in State of Kerala and, therefore, these appeals came to be decided by the High Court of Kerala.

p. 910, margin E

4

In short, the facts of the present two appeals are that the writ petitions were filed by the workers’ Union against the appellant (FCI) seeking a mandamus against the appellant (FCI) directing them to implement the award (Ex.P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai also in relation to the employees working in Branch offices at Kerala named above.

p. 910, margin F

5

The said award (Ex.P-1) directed the FCI to give benefits of regularization of the workers in the services of the FCI consequent upon abolition of contract laborers system in relation to Branch office at Chennai. This award (Ex.P-1) was upheld by this Court and attained finality.

p. 911, margin A

6

The High Court, by impugned order, allowed the writ petitions filed by the workers’ Union (respondents herein) and directed the FCI to give benefits of the said award to the members of the workers’ Union (respondent herein), who are working in two depots at Kerala finding no dissimilarity in two set of these cases.

p. 911, margin B

7

We also do not find any justifiable reason(s) to deny the relief granted by the High Court to the writ petitioners (respondents herein) insofar as these two appeals are concerned. It is more so when no distinguishing features were pointed out by the appellants on the facts or law, which may persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the High Court in the impugned order. What were pressed into service were only the technical issues arising in the case but we were not impressed by such issues. They did not go to the root of the case.

p. 911, margin C

8

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the judicial orders passed against the appellant in relation to identical matters, we find no good ground to take any other view in the case than the one taken by Madras High Court in similar case and in the impugned orders.

p. 911, margin D

9

In the light of the foregoing discussion, these appeals also fail and are accordingly dismissed.

p. 911, margin E