Case Background
The dispute began at the Food Corporation of India (FCI) Food Storage Depot at Sitamarhi in the early 1980s. Two individuals, later arrayed as respondent nos. 3 and 4, worked there as casual labourers on quality control jobs such as fumigation and brushing.
According to FCI, one of them worked for 92 days and the other for 58 days between April 1983 and June 1985. According to the workmen, they continued as casual Class-IV workers from April 1983 onwards, first being paid directly by FCI and, from 01.07.1985, through a transport contractor.
The workmen claimed that this unilateral diversion of wage payment to a contractor, without notice or consent, violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which deals with change in service conditions.
In 1987, FCI issued a circular dated 06.05.1987 stating that casual workers who had completed 90 days of service on or before 02.05.1986 would be eligible for consideration for regularisation against Class IV posts. The workmen asserted that they met this condition and repeatedly sought regularisation.
When the demand was not accepted, the dispute was taken to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Central Government, exercising its power under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, made a reference on 20.05.1997 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) No. 1, Dhanbad. The reference asked whether FCI’s action in not regularising the workmen was legal and justified, and if not, what relief they were entitled to.
The reference was registered as Reference Case No. 113 of 1997. Both sides filed written statements and adduced oral and documentary evidence. After long-pending proceedings, the CGIT passed an award on 06.04.2015 holding that non-regularisation was not legal and justified, and directing regularisation of the two workmen against regular posts from the date of award, with adjustment of amounts already received.
FCI then approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20157 of 2016, challenging the award and seeking its quashing.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman, heard counsel for FCI, the Union of India and the workman (respondent no. 3). By the time of the High Court decision, one workman (Hari Kishore Rai) had died and the other (Nagendra Rai) had crossed the age of superannuation. However, the Tribunal’s directions and the legality of the award still had to be considered.
FCI argued that the workmen had only worked intermittently as casual labourers for limited days between 1983 and 1985, in quality control-related jobs as and when required. FCI asserted they were never engaged on regular jobs, never appointed against sanctioned posts, and were not in FCI employment after June 1985.
FCI’s stand was that after 01.07.1985, the workmen worked under handling and transport contractors, sometimes at the Sitamarhi depot and sometimes elsewhere, and were paid by those contractors. On this basis, FCI claimed that the 1987 regularisation circular could not apply to them because they were contractor’s workers and not FCI’s employees at the relevant time.
FCI also questioned the genuineness of attendance registers and other documents produced by the workmen before the CGIT. It argued that the Tribunal wrongly presumed that the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous work and that mere completion of 240 days did not, in any event, automatically confer any right to regularisation.
Relying on decisions such as State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, and Oshiar Prasad v. Employers in Relation to Management of Sudam Dih Coal Washri, FCI contended that casual work without lawful appointment against sanctioned posts cannot create a legal right to regularisation.
On the other side, counsel for the workman argued that he had been engaged as a casual Class-IV worker at the Sitamarhi depot from April 1983 till June 2016, with wages first paid by FCI and later, without proper notice, through a transport contractor. He asserted that he had worked for more than 240 days and had satisfied the 90-day threshold under the 06.05.1987 circular.
The workman stressed that his claim for regularisation was raised as early as 1995 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and the Central Government’s reference led to the 1997 case before CGIT. He pointed out that FCI itself delayed filing its written statement for nearly three years, and even failed to appear at the stage of final arguments before the Tribunal.
He argued that the CGIT’s award was a reasoned one, based on oral and documentary evidence, and that the High Court’s power under Article 226 was supervisory, not appellate. Citing Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, he submitted that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view where the Tribunal had jurisdiction and evidence existed on record.
The workman further submitted that engaging workers as casuals for years amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Durgapur Casual Worker Union v. Food Corporation of India, which upheld regularisation of long-serving casual workers in FCI depots.
During the hearing, the Court also sought clarification on FCI Circular No. 38/1996 dated 09.09.1996, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4, which dealt with casual and daily wage workers. The workman’s counsel explained that these clauses were meant to regulate future unauthorised engagement by field officers, not to bar the regularisation of already long-serving casual workers. The workman’s own regularisation claim, he pointed out, was anchored in the 06.05.1987 circular and pre-dated the 1996 circular.
However, after recording and considering these rival submissions, the High Court turned to a different and decisive point: the maintainability of FCI’s writ petition itself.
The Court noted that FCI is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) and that, as per instructions issued by the Government of India, PSUs are required to obtain approval from the Central Government before challenging an award of a Labour Court or CGIT before the High Court.
Three key government documents were examined:
First, Office Memorandum No. 3/25/64-1&E (1-5) dated 08.08.1964, which laid down a “screening procedure” for appeals by PSUs against awards of tribunals and labour courts. Under this, whenever a PSU wished to file an appeal from an award or judgment of a Labour Court, Tribunal, or High Court, it had to first refer the case, with full facts, to its administrative ministry. The administrative ministry, after consulting the Law Ministry, was required to consult the Labour Ministry, and in case of disagreement between these ministries, the matter had to be placed before the Committee of Economic Secretaries.
Second, Office Memorandum No. H-52027/8/99-IR (Imp-I) dated 19.03.1999, which reiterated the 1964 instructions. It specifically recorded that some ministries and PSUs were challenging industrial tribunal awards in High Courts without first obtaining government permission under the screening procedure. The memorandum again instructed that this procedure was to be strictly followed and that cases should be referred in time so that any proposed writ petition would not become time-barred.
Third, Letter No. Z-13025/08/2019-IR (Imp-I) dated 08.11.2019, which once again reminded ministries and PSUs of the screening procedure and urged strict adherence. Although this later letter post-dated the filing of the present writ petition, it confirmed that the earlier 1964 and 1999 instructions continued to be in force.
The Court observed that the present writ petition was filed in 2016, when the 1964 and 1999 memoranda were clearly applicable and operative. Yet, in the entire pleading of the writ petition, FCI had nowhere stated that it had obtained prior approval from the Central Government or followed the screening procedure before filing the case.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the mandatory procedure had not been shown to be followed. In other words, the writ petition had been filed in gross violation of the Office Memoranda dated 08.08.1964 and 19.03.1999.
The Court also recorded, on facts, that both workmen had indeed worked as casual labourers for 92 and 58 days respectively between April 1983 and June 1987 in quality control jobs at FCI’s Sitamarhi depot. It noted that, under the 06.05.1987 circular, casual workers who completed 90 days of service on or before 02.05.1986 were eligible for consideration for regularisation against Class IV posts. The Court further observed that FCI had diverted the payment of wages through a transport contractor without prior notice or consent, which, according to the Tribunal, violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finally, the Court held that, first, the writ petition itself was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the screening procedure, and second, the award of the CGIT, Dhanbad was a well-reasoned award. On both counts, there was no scope for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court directed FCI to implement the CGIT award within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the High Court order before FCI.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has two major practical implications.
First, it reinforces the protection available to long-serving casual workers in public sector undertakings. Where internal circulars provide for regularisation based on minimum days of service, and workers have in fact put in that service, tribunals and courts may step in if the employer denies them regular posts without good reason.
Second, and crucially for PSUs, the Patna High Court has underlined that Government of India’s screening procedure is not an empty formality. Before challenging an industrial tribunal’s award in a High Court, PSUs must obtain prior approval through their administrative ministry, and that ministry must consult the Law and Labour Ministries. Failure to follow this procedure can render a writ petition vulnerable to dismissal at the threshold, without the court even needing to go into the merits.
For casual workers in Bihar and elsewhere, this case shows that once an industrial tribunal passes an award in their favour, a PSU employer cannot casually rush to court to stall it without first following the Central Government’s internal approval mechanism.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Was the writ petition filed by FCI against the CGIT award maintainable without prior Central Government approval under the screening procedure for PSUs?
Answer: No. The Court held that FCI had not shown compliance with the Office Memoranda dated 08.08.1964 and 19.03.1999, which required prior approval before challenging tribunal awards. The writ petition was therefore held to be in gross violation of these instructions and dismissed. - Issue: Should the Patna High Court interfere with the CGIT award directing regularisation of the two workmen?
Answer: No. The Court noted that the award was well reasoned, based on consideration of the FCI circular dated 06.05.1987 and the facts regarding the workmen’s service and diversion of wages. Finding no ground to interfere, especially in view of the procedural violation by FCI, the Court left the award undisturbed and ordered its implementation.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment records reliance by parties on several Supreme Court decisions such as State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others, Oshiar Prasad and Others v. Employers in Relation to Management of Sudam Dih Coal Washri, Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, and Durgapur Casual Worker Union v. Food Corporation of India. The Patna High Court, however, decided the matter on the basis of the Government Office Memoranda and did not undertake a detailed doctrinal discussion of these cases.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20157 of 2016
Case Title: Employers in relation to the Management of Food Corporation of India, Patna through the Area Manager, District Office, Muzaffarpur (Bihar) v. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 258
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Date of Judgment: 23.09.2026
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Advocates:
- For the petitioner (FCI Management): Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate; Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Saurav Kumar Verma, Advocate
- For respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Union of India and CGIT Presiding Officer): Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Central Government Counsel
- For respondent no. 3 (workman): Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Aniket Thakur, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an industrial award (Reference Case No. 113 of 1997) passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, directing regularisation of casual workers in FCI.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjAxNTcjMjAxNiMxI04=-gs0p2H67FMo=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
