Supreme Court allows appeal challenging Tribunal award, deems change in payment method illegal.

The Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted special leave to appeal, allowing the Food Corporation of India Workers Union to challenge the Tribunal's award. The Court ruled that the change in payment method and employment status of the 464 workmen without adherence to the Industrial Disputes Act was illegal. The Tribunal's handling of the identification process was criticized for not considering practical difficulties and evidence presented. The Corporation was directed to reinstate identified workmen and pay back wages, with costs awarded to the appellant Union.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay condonation and special leave grant.
2. Legality of the change in payment method and employment status of 464 workmen.
3. Identification of the 464 workmen.
4. Tribunal's handling of the identification process.
5. Evidence and documentation issues.
6. Final resolution and directions for reinstatement and back wages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay Condonation and Special Leave Grant:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted special leave to appeal, allowing the Food Corporation of India Workers Union to challenge the Tribunal's award dated 5.11.1993.

2. Legality of the Change in Payment Method and Employment Status:
The appellant, a registered trade union, contested the reintroduction of payment through contractors, arguing it was illegal and malicious. Initially, a direct payment system was in place, which established a direct master-servant relationship between the Corporation and the workmen. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1055(NL)/81 had previously ruled that the 464 workmen were indeed employees of the Corporation and any change in their service conditions without adherence to Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947, was illegal and invalid.

3. Identification of the 464 Workmen:
The Tribunal was directed to identify the 464 workmen, including 203 undisputed by the management. The Tribunal's award dated 5.11.1993 concluded that none of the 287 workmen who came forward could prove their employment with the Corporation. The Supreme Court found this conclusion erroneous, noting that the Tribunal failed to consider the practical difficulties and the evidence presented.

4. Tribunal's Handling of the Identification Process:
The Tribunal's approach was criticized for being overly rigid and not considering the practical realities, such as the lapse of time and the illiteracy of the workmen. The Tribunal categorized identity cards into groups based on resemblance without clear guidelines, leading to arbitrary conclusions.

5. Evidence and Documentation Issues:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Corporation did not produce crucial documents like pay sheets, muster rolls, and other records that were in its possession. The Tribunal's failure to compel the production of these documents and the adverse inference against the Corporation for withholding evidence were noted.

6. Final Resolution and Directions for Reinstatement and Back Wages:
The Supreme Court directed the appellant Union to identify the disputed workmen, who would then be reinstated by the Corporation. The Union's officer must act with integrity, and any fraudulent activity would lead to prosecution. Identified workmen would be reinstated within three months and paid 70% of their normal earnings as back wages from 17.4.1990 until reinstatement. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the appellant by the Corporation.

This comprehensive analysis covers all relevant issues, preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.

---