D. Subramaniam v. The Food Corporation Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/220/2022 D. Subramaniam Vs.

The Food Corporation of India Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar .... for the petitioner Ms. A. S. Zinu ... for the respondent March 18, 2025 [SR] Item No.7 1.

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Port Blair on remand decided the dispute raised by the petitioner/workman and held on consideration of the evidence on record that the first party workman could not prove that he worked continuously for 240 days in the preceeding twelve calendar months in FCI. 2.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner workman has submitted that the matter was remanded for consideration of the document being a letter dated 21.04.2009 in which the Area Manager has recommended his appointment for the post of Driver/any job in Food Corporation of India. The author of the letter seems to have stated that the workman is a Daily Rated/Van Driver of the office and he has been working in the office van as Daily Rated Driver for more than ten years satisfactorily. The said document was exhibited.

3.

The author of the letter in spite of all efforts did not appear before the Tribunal although summon was issued upon the said person.

4.

The Tribunal accordingly proceeded on the basis of the existing materials and evidence that on record. 5.

The Tribunal considered the log book entries for different periods including the period immediately preceding non-renewal of service and has relied upon the log book given in reply to the RTI wherefrom it would appear that at the relevant point of time one Mr.Rafique was hired as a driver which runs contrary to the claim of the petitioner of working 240 days continuously for twelve months preceding the alleged termination. The log book entries for different periods with the vehicle numbers were also examined. It was also found that the writ petitioner was not in direct employment of the FCI and performed his duty as a driver through a contractor on requirement basis. 6.

On such consideration, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition fails. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( Soumen Sen, J. )