HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 8545 of 2009 Connected with Writ A Nos. 14381/2009 15878/2009 16769/2009 17126/2009 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. These writ petitions are pending since 2009 i.e. more than 11/2 decade. 2. Petitioners in all writ petitions are contractual employees of Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) who is not a party in this writ petition and they have approached this Court that Food Corporation of India (FCI) be directed to comply the orders dated 23.04.2003 and 02.08.2003 that contract labourers of F.C.I. be granted financial benefits, though admittedly petitioners are not direct contractual appointee of F.C.I. They are outsourcing contract appointees by contractor of CWC and this objection was initially taken note by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2009 and for reference, said order is quoted below :- "Shri S.P. Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of all respondents. He is granted four weeks to file counter affidavit. The petitioners will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 13.4.2009. The petitioners are claiming compliance of the Circular issued by the Food of India on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.P. Srivastava, S.C., Satya Prakash, Vijay Kumar Dixit Naresh And Others .....Petitioner(s) Food Corpn. Of India And Others .....Respondent(s) Corporation 11/24.3.2003 for compliance of the provisions of the Contract Labours (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Rules of 1971. Shri S.P. Srivastava appearing for Food Corporation of India (FCI) submits that subject godown has been taken over for storage by FCI, under an agreement Central Warehousing with Corporation (CWC) and that the petitioners are the employees of the contractors of the CWC. It is contended that there is no relationship of employer and employees or labourers engaged through the contractors between the petitioners and FCI. The application for interim order will be considered on the next date of hearing." 3. Second preliminary objection was taken that petitioners being workmen would have an alternative remedy in terms of provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. None appears for petitioners, however, Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for respondents is present. 5. Learned counsel for respondents has referred relevant part of counter affidavit filed in Writ A No. 17126/2009 and for reference, its relevant paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are quoted below :- "5. That the petitioners have alternative remedy to raise dispute before the Industrial Tribunal or to lodge complaint before the Prescribed Authority under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act 1970/Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act against non-compliance of the various provisions of the & particular Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has already held in the cases of Steel Authority of India and Uma Devi's WRIA No. 8545 of 2009 2 case that all disputes raised by labours be adjudicated by authorities under the I.D. Act. No writ petition is maintainable for the aforesaid reasons. 7. That none of the petitioners have filed their appointment letters nor are the employees of the Corporation, appointed by F.C.I. in accordance with Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. 8. That writ petition suffers from Non- impleadment of necessary party i.e. the contractor who had issued the list, who could affirm the facts of their appointment and the State Ware Housing Corporation who is alleged to have engaged them through Contractor, Ekbal Ahmad. 9. That alleged contractor had never been engaged or appointed as contractor by the respondent No.1 to 5 at Mirzapur Depot of F.C.I. 10. That the Mirzapur Depot in question which belongs to F.C.I., had been hired by State Ware of U.P. w.e.f. Housing Corporation of State 28.11.2000. Prior to date, from 21.8.91 to 27.11.2000 (for 9 years) the aforesaid Depot was completely closed and Non-functional. Before Aug. 1991, another contractor Sarvodya Shram Samvida Co-operative Society Ltd. was functioning as contractor, M/s Ekbal Ahmad was never appointed as Contractor by F.C.I. 11. That petitioners are claiming appointment w.e.f. 2001. During the aforesaid period the Godown in question was Rented out to S.W.C. and WRIA No. 8545 of 2009 3 the said corporation is in full supervisory control and in possession of the said Depot., Under an Govt. of India arrangement. The aforesaid S.W.C. appoints its own H&T contractor to execute the Handling and Transport work. F.C.I. has no role to play in such operation/functions. Copy of Govt. of India/F.C.I. Policy decision and copy of Handing over possession to S.W.C. dated 28.11.2000 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-2 and CA-3 to this affidavit." 6. No rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioners in reply to counter affidavit. 7. In above circumstances, Court finds substance in contents of counter affidavit filed by respondents and in above circumstances, on above referred both grounds that petitioners have alternative remedy as well as they did not have a employer-employee relationship between them and F.C.I., therefore, relief sought in present writ petitions cannot be granted. 8. Accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by each petitioner in High Court Bar Association. 9. A copy of this order be sent to first petitioner in each writ petition on their respective given addresses. 10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. September 22, 2025 N. Sinha WRIA No. 8545 of 2009 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad