The respondent ­Food Corporation of India to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workers who had initiated industrial disputes bearing before the Industrial Tribunal , Tamil Nadu, Chennai under Section 10(1)(d) of industrial Disputes Acts,1947. The concerned employees were employed at Depots of the Corporation in the Southern Zone of India including the States of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, asdaily­ 1 For short, “the Corporation” 2 For short, “the Tribunal” 3 For short,“the 1947 Act” rated labour or casual labour through contract labour cooperative societies or private contractors. They were working in that capacity for quite some time and in some cases, for around 15 to 20 years, and were performing similar work as the regular employees of the Corporation. following issue was referred to for adjudication: ­ “Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, in denying to regularise 955 contract labourers engaged by management of Food Corporation of India Godown, Avadi through TVK Cooperative Society in respect of names as given in the Annexure is justified?If not to what relief they are entitled to?”, Reference was made for adjudication of the following issue: ­ “Whether the services of workmen employed in different Food Storage depots in Food Corporation of India in the South where notifications have been issued prohibiting engagement of contract labourers under Section 10(1) of CL (Rand A) Act are entitled to be regularised and if so,from which date?” “The Charter of demand submitted by the FCI Workers Union vide their letter dated 12.2.96 was taken do for discussions and decision taken on each of their demands are recorded as under: ­Department allegation of workers and payment of documental wages to the workers in all FCI depots as recommended upto the Hon’ble Supreme Cour tof India, and especially in South Sons where the Central Government have notified prohibiting employment of contract labour long before considering the food handling work as perennial in by Labour Cooperative Society as Contractorsas well as the Hon’ble High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka have also directed for departmentisation of FCI workers in F.S. Depots. The Union demanded departmentalization of labour in all the notified depots on the plea that thereare other notified depots where departmentalisation has already been done since 1991. As such, these depots may also be extended the benefit of departmentalisation. After having protracted discussions, keeping in view the orders of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court and the scheme submitted for decision between the Karnataka High Court, following decisions were taken: ­ (i) It was decided that in all remaining, notified FCIs own Depots which were running under the Labour Cooperative Societies, or otherwise may be brought under Direct [sic] Payment System with all the benefits under the Direct Payment Scheme w.e.f. 1 st May, 1996. (ii) It was also decided that proposal for departmentalization will be sent to the government by 31st july, 1996 and till decision from the govt. or from concerned courts Direct payment system will continue.  (iii) It was agreed that inthe other notified depots of FCI where labour Cooperative Societies are not functioning, the labour strength will be assessed on the basis of the formula to be evolved in consultation with FCI Workers Union as the Union had mentioned that the formula of assessment of labour being adopted by diving the work loadi.e. receipt and issue by 365 is not realistic. (iv) As regards notified depots under CWC, separate discussions will be held for a final decision.

‍

In the present case, as noticed earlier, no specific direction has been given to the Corporation to regularise the concerned workmen only in the Departmental Labour System. Furthermore, the Departmental Labour System is now a dying cadre and the policy of the Corporation at the relevant time entailed regularisation of such workmen only under the Direct Payment System (DPS). Thus understood, no contempt action can be initiated on the basis of general direction to the respondents to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen. For, it is not possible to hold that intrinsic in the general direction was to ordain the respondents to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen under the Departmental Labour System in the teeth of the extant policy of the Corporation in force since 1991 regarding regularisation against Direct Payment System (DPS).Suffice it to observe that no case for initiating contempt action against the respondent Corporation and its officers has been made out. We need not,therefore, analyse any other aspect of the matter, which would requirere writing of the judgments on the basis of which this contempt action has beeninstituted. That cannot be countenanced in contempt proceedings.

‍

These petitions fail and are dismissed. Show cause notices stand discharged. Pending interlocutory The applications,if any, shall stand disposed of.

‍