Summary
The Court restored the award regularising 21 FCI workmen because management had voluntarily implemented it, expressly absorbed them and benefited from their service for over two decades. Making compliance subject to the pending writ petition did not preserve an unrestricted right to reverse that settled position after prolonged inaction. Management’s separate challenge to reinstatement and back wages was also barred by its earlier recorded stance.
Issues
- Whether FCI could undo regularisation after voluntarily implementing the award and retaining the workmen in regular service for decades.
- Whether management could challenge reinstatement and back wages after expressly declining to contest them before the Division Bench.
Provisions considered
- Section 17B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The interim order required only payment of full wages last drawn; it did not compel reinstatement or absorption. Management’s decision to implement the entire award went beyond what its conditional stay required. (¶¶ 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)
Held
- The Division Bench had expressly recorded that management was not challenging reinstatement and 75 per cent back wages. Management could not raise those abandoned issues in the Supreme Court, so its appeal failed on that ground. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The conditional stay could have been maintained by paying the required last-drawn wages. Instead, after the contempt proceedings had already closed, management reinstated the workmen and issued a further corrigendum expressly absorbing them. The claim that contempt pressure compelled full implementation was therefore rejected. (¶¶ 5, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- A party cannot voluntarily accept an adjudicated arrangement, obtain its benefits, induce the other side to alter its position and then seek reversal after prolonged inaction. Here regular absorption and decades of service benefiting FCI, coupled with failure to seek prompt disposal, made the attempted reversal impermissible despite the original reservation that compliance depended on the writ outcome. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The decision preserved the particular settled position rather than declaring a general entitlement to regularisation from casual service. The Single Judge’s order and Tribunal award were restored, subject to the Supreme Court’s observations in the contempt order of 26 July 2022. (¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17)
Result
Workmen’s appeal allowed and management’s appeal dismissed. Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge’s order and Tribunal award restored subject to the observations in the contempt order dated 26 July 2022. Pending applications closed; parties to bear their own costs.