High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Brijendra Kumar & Others v. Food Corporation Of India & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1437 of 2006  RD-AH 19664 (21 November 2006)
Special Appeal No.1437 of 2006
Bijendra Kumar (Labour Mate) and others
Food Corporation of India and others
Counsel for the appellants: 1. Mr. Ashish Agrawal, Adv.
Counsel for the respondents: 1. Mr. N.P. Singh, Adv.
2. Chief Standing Counsel
3. Addl. Solicitor General of India
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, on the 13th of September, 2006. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition of the 264 appellants, who filed the writ petition all together.
It appears that 84 of these writ petitioners were parties in another writ petition containing 477 writ petitioners, which was dismissed by the Lucknow Bench on 28.8.2002, when the writ petition was simply withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.
The writ petitioners submit that although contract labour has been abolished in the area in question and they should be paid directly, yet the contract labour system is going on illegally. This is denied vehemently on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. Their case is that no fewer than a few thousands of stray workers are seeking to abuse the process of the Court; they submit that this is the 17th writ petition, and already 16 writ petitions have been filed without producing any result in favour of these writ petitioners, and rightly so; it is submitted that the process of the Court is being abused.
Since the writ petition has been dismissed at a preliminary level, we are not minded to enter into these controversies at this stage; it is enough for us to note that considering in a bunch the case of 264 writ petitioners, or even the 180 new writ petitioners, even if those in the Lucknow petition are left out, would be a matter of serious embarrassment to the Court. Facts can never be discarded in a Court case; we asked learned counsel for the appellants two simple questions, i.e., how long Bijendra Kumar-first appellant has been working, and how much, if any, he was paid last month and by whom. It was submitted that these particulars are not mentioned in regard to the individual appellant. However, the age of Bijendra Kumar was mentioned as 47 from the affidavit. Numerous factual questions, like the two above unanswered would have to be put by the Court in regard to each individual writ petitioner for giving exact justice in accordance with law. Dealing with a petition of this nature, where a jumble of stray workers come, would compel the Court to deal with a mob petition, and not with a writ petition of any individual citizen. This type of practice should be seriously discouraged.
As such, without entering into the merits, or legal rights of the parties, the appeal is similarly summarily dismissed, as the writ petition was.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.