Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19648-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 311 of 2024 Employer in relation to Management of Food Corporation of India, a body corporate, incorporated under the Food Corporations Act, 1964, through its Area Manager (earlier) redesignated as Divisional Manager, earlier District Office Chhapra, P.O. & P.S. Chhapra, District Chhapra, Bihar, now Divisional Office, Naveen Plaza, 1st and 2nd Floor, Anjanpeer Chowk, Hajipur (Vaishali) Bihar-844101, namely Shamsherul Haque, aged about 51 years, Son of Zaimuddin Ansari, resident of Abu Fazal Enclave, P.O. Okhla, P.S. Okhla, District Delhi (South), PIN- 110011. ... Petitioner/Appellant Versus Vina Devi, aged about 57 years, wife of Late Madan Mohan Singh, R/o- Ward No.-16, Ramadauli Tola Karmapur, Ramdauli Vaishali, PO & PS- Vaishali, District- Vaishali, Bihar. ... Respondent/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr Shubham Sinha, Advocate Mr Namashyu Kejriwal, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr Navin Kumar, Advocate Mr Harsh Chandra Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate --------- 08/Dated: 06.07.2026 1. Heard Nipun Bakshi, who appears with Mr Shubham Sinha and Mr Namashyu Kejriwal for the appellant, and Mr Navin Kumar who appears with Mr Harsh Chandra and Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh for the respondent. 2. The respondent-workman is now represented by his widow upon his expiry during the pendency of this proceeding. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19648-DB 3. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s judgment and order dated 1st February 2024 dismissing the appellant’s W.P. (L) No. 4620 of 2011. 4. W.P. (L) No. 4620 of 2011, instituted by the present appellant, challenged the Central Government Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 04.11.2009 in Reference Case No. 121 of 1994, by which the CGIT ordered the regularisation of the respondent-workman’s services, noting that the respondent workman had been engaged as a daily wager with effect from 22.04.1984 and had not been regularised despite the appellant’s circulars applying to the respondent-workman’s case. 5. Thus, in this case, there are concurrent findings recorded by the CGIT and the learned Single Judge favouring the respondent- workman. The scope of interference against such concurrent findings, mainly on facts, is extremely limited. 6. Mr Nipun Bakshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that in this case, MW.2, who deposed in the matter, had categorically stated that the office room in which the respondent- workman allegedly worked was closed by the watchman in the evening. However, the Tribunal has misread this evidence and held that it was the respondent-workman who used to close the office- room in the evening. Mr Bakshi submitted that such misreading constitutes a perversity. He submitted that the circular regarding regularisation referred to a casual worker working full time. From Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19648-DB the correct reading of MW.2’s deposition, it was apparent that the respondent-workman was not working full time. Consequently, the respondent-workman was not entitled to the benefit of the circular now contained therein. 7. We have considered the above submission of Mr Nipun Bakshi, noting that no other submission was made by Mr Nipun Bakshi in support of this appeal. 8. The learned Single Judge has dealt with this submission and concluded that the discrepancy pointed out is only a minor discrepancy that does not constitute any perversity in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In any event, we have, though not required, perused and evaluated the evidence of MW.1 and MW.2, which is a part of the record. 10. MW.1 has admitted that the respondent-workman was working since 1984 and continues to work at the time of the deposition. In the cross-examination, MW.1 admitted that in none of the bills in Ext. M-1 series it is recorded that the respondent-workman worked only for one and a half hours daily. In fact, in cross-examination, MW.1 admitted that in Column 4 of the exhibits, there is reference to full days’ work. MW.1 also admitted that he has signed Ext. M- 1/1 and Ext. M-1/2 as a Depot In-charge and full days’ payment was made to the respondent-workman. Further, MW.1 has admitted that the attendance of the workman was counted for the full day in the attendance register. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19648-DB 11. Now, the above evidence of MW.1 [ Management witness], is more than sufficient to sustain the finding that the respondent- workman was working from 1984 onwards and that too, on a full- time basis. Besides, there is other evidence on record to sustain such finding. The finding of the CGIT is not based upon merely evidence of MW.2. Therefore, even assuming that there is some minor discrepancy in construing the evidence of MW.2, the finding about the respondent-workman working since 1984 on a full-time basis is very much sustainable based upon the clear and cogent testimony of MW.1 and the remaining testimony of MW.2. 12. Some minor discrepancy here and there can never be elevated to the status of a perversity. This is not a case where the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the two Courts are based on no evidence on record or contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence on record. In fact, if a contrary finding were to be recorded by the Tribunal or the learned Single Judge, then, it could have been said that such a finding is contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence on record. 13. Thus, we are satisfied that no case of perversity is made out and that the orders of the CGIT and the learned Single Judge warrant no interference. The findings of fact recorded therein suffer from no perversity whatsoever that would warrant any interference in the exercise of our limited jurisdiction under the Letters Patent. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19648-DB 14. Mr Navin Kumar has relied upon the order dated 04.01.2023 in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8310 of 2021 to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed FCI’s special leave petition challenging the judgment and order dated 17th December 2020 in L.P.A. No. 582 of 2019, in which the learned Single Judge of this Court had refused to interfere with CGIT’s award directing regularisation. 15. For the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. I.A. No. 5270 of 2024 seeking interim relief does not survive and is disposed of. 16. In this case, CGIT made its award on 4th of November 2009 pursuant to Reference No. 121 of 1994. Mr Navin Kumar states that, to date, no financial benefits have been provided. He has submitted that the respondent-workman, despite his success before the CGIT and the learned Single Judge, could not avail of the fruits of his long-drawn litigation, since he expired on 27.11.2025. Even in this matter, though there was no interim relief granted by this Court, the appellant-Employer paid nothing to the widow of the deceased respondent-workman. 17. Mr Nipun Bakshi states that it is open to the respondent-widow to apply under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to claim the financial benefits. 18. With respect to him, we find that this submission made on behalf of the Food Corporation of India is rather insensitive when the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19648-DB respondent seeking monetary benefits is the widow of a poor workman who was prima facie exploited since the year 1984 and denied the fruits of his success in a long-drawn litigation that he or his family could hardly afford. Such a submission perhaps goes contrary to the very objective for which the Food Corporation of India was established. 19. Accordingly, we direct the appellant in the peculiar facts of this case to pay to the respondent-widow all the financial benefits under the CGIT’s award within six weeks from today. A compliance report must be filed by the Area Manager of FCI in this Court on or before 17th of August 2026 after giving an advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondent. 20. Though this appeal is disposed of, place the matter on 18th of August 2026 for orders, to consider the compliance report. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 06, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 06.07.2026