IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 42 of 2025 ----- 1. Daya Rani, W/o late Shivji Paswan, R/o village- Imlitola, PO and PS Gulabbagh, District Purnea, Bihar. 2. Hari Bilas Paswan, S/o late Ram Sunder Paswan, R/o village Sani Mandir, PO and PS Gulabbagh, District Purnea, Bihar. 3. Sumitra Devi, W/o late Jagdish Rai, R/o village-Singia Tola, PO and PS Gulabbagh, District Purnea, Bihar. 4. Mahadeo Paswan, S/o Fulchand Paswan, R/o village Sani Mandir, PO and PS Gulabbagh, Disrict Purnea, Bihar. 5. Harendra Nath Biswas , S/o late Harlal Biswas, R/o village Ram Krishna Pali, PO and PS Akalpur, District- Malda, West Bengal. …Petitioner(s). Versus 1.Union of India through the Executive Director (IR-S), Food Corporation of India Headquarters, PO and PS New Delhi, district New Delhi. 2. The Executive Director (East), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (E), Kolkata, PO and PS Park Street, District Howra, (WB) 3. The Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Regional Office, Patna, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal Bhawan, 3rd and 4th Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna, PO and PS Patna, District Patna. 4.The Manger (Karmik), resident at Navratna Hata, Near Ford Company Chowk, PO and PS- Purnea, District- Purnea, Bihar. … Respondent(s). CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI; Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC ...... 02 /21.01.2025: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have claimed that they should be regularized from the date of reference which is in the year 1996. 3. The petitioners were employed by Food Corporation of India. They prayed for regularization and raised industrial dispute in the year 1996. The reference was made to the industrial tribunal to decide the reference in respect of regularization. 4. The schedule of the reference reads as follows: “Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna in not regularising the services of Sh. Ram Bilash Paswan and 9 others in the grade they are working is justified and legal ? if not, what relief the workmen are entitled ?” 5. The reference case was numbered as 130 of 1996. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal no.2 at Dhanbad vide award dated -2- 8th September, 2011 answered the reference in favour of the workmen. It was held that only the workmen, namely, Ram Bilas Paswan, Hari Bilas Paswan, Smt. Daya Rani, Smt. Sumitra Devi, Sri Harendra Nath Biswas, Mahadeo Paswan and Krityanand Mallick are entitled for regularization of their services in Group D posts within two months from the date of publication of the award. The aforesaid direction given in Reference Case No. 130 of 1996 by the Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad was challenged by the management and the management lost up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The management thereafter regularized the services of the petitioners from 21st September, 2011. 6. Now the petitioners claim that they may be given the same benefit which was given to another set of workmen vide order dated 27.8.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 165 of 1997 in which the workmen were regularized from the date of reference. 7. The dispute of the petitioners and others were referred for adjudication which was decided in Reference Case no. 130 of 1996. The order and directions given in Reference Case No. 130 of 1996 will govern the petitioners and no other case. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners were specifically directed to be regularized within two months from the date of publication of the award which has been done in this case. The petitioners never challenged the date of their regularization before any authority and accepted the same. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts that there is specific award passed in favour of the petitioners which directed the authorities to regularize the petitioners within two months from the date of publication of the award which has been done here, the petitioners cannot be given the same benefit in respect of other reference in which the petitioners were not party. Further the award was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. 9. Allowing the prayer of the petitioners will amount to modification of the award, upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is impermissible. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. KNR/- (ANANDA SEN, J.)