LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws. This blog is only for information but not for legal opinions

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

PIL for checking the harmful soft drinks etc = Centre for Public Interest Litigation .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others .. Respondents http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40892

  PIL for checking the harmful soft drinks etc =
 The writ  petition  was  preferred  for  constituting  an  independent
Expert/Technical Committee to evaluate the harmful effects  of  soft  drinks
on human health, particularly on the health of the children, and also for  a
direction to respondent No. 1  –  Union  of  India  –  to  put  in  place  a
regulatory  regime   which  could  control  and  check  the  contents  in  a
particular chemical additive in  foods,  including  soft  drinks.
 Further,
direction was also sought for against respondent no. 1 to make it  mandatory
for the soft  drinks  manufacturers  to  disclose  the  contents  and  their
specific quantity on  the  labels  of  soft  drinks,  including  appropriate
warnings, qua a particular  ingredient,  and  its  harmful  effects  on  the
people.
Petitioner has also sought for a direction to respondent no.  1  to
check and control the misleading advertising of  soft  drinks,  particularly
advertisements  targeted  at  children,  unwary  uneducated  and  illiterate
people.=

 We are, therefore, of the view that the provisions of the FSS Act and
PFA Act and  the  rules  and  regulations  framed  there under  have  to  be
interpreted and applied in the  light  of  the  Constitutional  Principles,
discussed above and endeavour has to be  made  to  achieve  an  appropriate
level of protection of human life and health.  Considerable  responsibility
is cast on the Authorities as well as the other officers functioning  under
the above mentioned Acts to achieve the desired  results.  Authorities  are
also obliged to maintain a  system  of  control  and  other  activities  as
appropriate to the circumstances, including public  communication  on  food
safety and risk, food safety surveillance and other  monitoring  activities
covering all stages of food business.

23.   Enjoyment of life and its attainment, including  right  to  life  and
human dignity encompasses, within its ambit  availability  of  articles  of
food,  without  insecticides  or  pesticides  residues,  veterinary   drugs
residues,  antibiotic  residues,  solvent  residues,  etc.   But  the  fact
remains, many of the food articles like rice, vegetables, meat, fish, milk,
fruits available in the market contain insecticides or pesticides residues,
beyond the tolerable limits, causing serious health  hazards.   We  notice,
fruit based soft drinks available in various  fruit  stalls,  contain  such
pesticides residues in alarming proportion, but no  attention  is  made  to
examine its contents.  Children and infants are uniquely susceptible to the
effects of pesticides because of their physiological immaturity and greater
exposure to soft drinks, fruit based or otherwise.

24.   We, therefore, direct the Food  and  Safety  Standards  Authority  of
India, to gear up their resources with their counterparts in all the States
and Union Territories and conduct periodical inspections and monitoring  of
major fruits and vegetable markets, so as to ascertain whether they conform
to such standards set by the Act and the Rules.

25.   Penal provisions are also provided in the Act.  It is, therefore,  of
utmost importance  that  the  provisions  of  the  Acts  are  properly  and
effectively implemented so that the State can achieve an appropriate  level
of human life and health, safeguarding the right to life  guaranteed  under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.


26.   The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above  directions,  leaving
its respondents, as already indicated, to strictly follow the provisions of
the FSS Act as well as the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.

                                                              REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 681 OF 2004
Centre for Public Interest Litigation              .. Petitioner
                                   Versus
Union of India and Others               .. Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1.    The writ  petition  was  preferred  for  constituting  an  independent
Expert/Technical Committee to evaluate the harmful effects  of  soft  drinks
on human health, particularly on the health of the children, and also for  a
direction to respondent No. 1  –  Union  of  India  –  to  put  in  place  a
regulatory  regime   which  could  control  and  check  the  contents  in  a
particular chemical additive in  foods,  including  soft  drinks.  
 Further,
direction was also sought for against respondent no. 1 to make it  mandatory
for the soft  drinks  manufacturers  to  disclose  the  contents  and  their
specific quantity on  the  labels  of  soft  drinks,  including  appropriate
warnings, qua a particular  ingredient,  and  its  harmful  effects  on  the
people.  
Petitioner has also sought for a direction to respondent no.  1  to
check and control the misleading advertising of  soft  drinks,  particularly
advertisements  targeted  at  children,  unwary  uneducated  and  illiterate
people.


2.    The Union of India and other respondents  have  maintained  the  stand
that the Food Supply and Standards Act, 2006 (the FSS Act), along  with  its
Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, constitute  a  vigorous  regulatory
regime,  which  takes  care  of  all  the  above  mentioned  situations  and
provisions of the FSS Act and the Rules and Regulations are  being  enforced
scrupulously  and  meticulously.  
Over  and  above,  it  was  pointed,   in
pursuance to the orders passed by this Court on 8.2.2011 and 15.4.2011,  the
Food  and  Safety  Standards  Authority  of  India  (for  short  “the   Food
Authority”) examined the various grievances raised  by  the  petitioner  and
passed the order on 12.9.2012.  The findings recorded  in  the  order  dated
12.9.2012 passed by the  Food  Authority  would  allay  all  the  fears  and
apprehensions raised by the writ petitioner and in any view the  same  could
be taken care of by the authorities functioning under the provisions of  the
FSS Act as well as the Rules and Regulations framed  thereunder.    Further,
it was also pointed out that if the petitioner or any other citizen has  any
grievance, he can always  approach  the  statutory  authorities  functioning
under the FSS Act and, hence, no further  directions  are  called  for  from
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.


3.    We have gone through the various provisions of the FSS Act,  the  Food
Safety and the  Standards  (Food  Products  Standards  and  Food  Additives)
Regulations, 2011, the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging  and  Labelling)
Regulations, 2011, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules  framed
thereunder, etc.  In our view, by and large, the various  grievances  raised
by the petitioner are seen covered by the above mentioned legislations,  but
the question is only with regard to their  enforcement  by  the  authorities
functioning  under these legislations.


4.     We  have  already  indicated  that  the  main  apprehension  of   the
petitioner is that  there  is  no  proper  regulatory  regime  in  place  to
evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on  human  health,  particularly
on the health of children and also there is  no  mechanism  to  control  and
check the contents in particular chemical additive in food,  including  soft
drinks.   Petitioner also submitted that,  though  two  separate  scientific
panels for additives, labelling and  advertising  were  constituted  on  the
basis of the directions given by this  Court,  the  petitioner’s  grievances
regarding the ingredients of soft drinks were considered by  the  scientific
panel on labelling and advertising and not by the scientific panel  on  food
additives.   Petitioner submitted that the issue could have been  considered
by the scientific panel for food additives only and not by the  panel  which
has been constituted to consider issues of labelling and advertising.    The
petitioner also submitted that even the recommendations made by the  Ganguly
Committee were not followed by the  above  mentioned  committees.  
 Ganguly
Committee has recommended for a “well controlled studies to  assess  effects
of consumption of carbonated water on health” and also an  independent  cell
for “risk analysis”.   Petitioner has pointed out that consumption of  large
amount of Caffeine (methylated xanthine)  can cause diseases and  disorders,
such as, insomnia, nervousness, anxiety and so on, which has  been  used  as
an additive in soft drinks and is harmful to  human  life.   In  support  of
this contention, reference has been made to various  research  papers  which
have highlighted the harmful effects of consumption of Caffeine.


5.    Petitioner has  also  highlighted  the  harmful  effects  on  children
created through misleading advertising, for which reference  has  been  made
on the study conducted by the World Health Organisation (WHO)  and  also  on
various study  papers  published  in  the  several  International  journals,
highlighting the impact of advertising on children and its harmful  effects.



6.    We have already indicated that on the basis of the  orders  passed  by
this Court on 8.2.2011 and 15.4.2011 and in  exercise  of  powers  conferred
under Section 13(4) of the FSS  Act,  the  Food  Authority,  constituted  an
expert Scientific Panel on Labelling and Claims/Advertising and that  Panel,
after examining the various grievances raised by the petitioner  and  giving
an opportunity of being heard, passed an order on 12.9.2012,  the  operative
portion of the same reads as under:
    “a)    Soft drinks as  referred  in  the  representation  (Petitioner’s
           representation dated 18.03.2011), are  regulated  as  carbonated
           water in accordance with the standards  under  Food  Safety  and
           Standard Regulation, 2011.”   “(W)ith the  existing  consumption
           pattern prevalent in  the  country  as  reported  in  the  above
           referred data, the ingredients present in the  beverage  do  not
           appear to pose any health hazard.”
    b)     The labelling of soft drinks is governed by the Food Safety  and
           Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations,  2011.   “(T)he
           labelling provisions of carbonated beverages  is  in  compliance
           with the Food Safety and  Standards  (Packaging  and  Labelling)
           Regulations, 2011.”
    c)     The advertisement of carbonated beverages is governed inter alia
           by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,  1954,  Food  Safety
           and Standards (Restriction  of  Advertisement)  and  Regulation,
           2011 and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Code.
            The advertisement of carbonated  beverages  complies  with  the
           provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the
           Food  Safety  and  Standards  (Restriction   of   Advertisement)
           Regulation 2011 and the ASCI Code.”

7.     We  find  that  the  scientific  panel  consists  of  eminent   food
scientists,  chemical  engineers,  nutritionists,  public  health  experts,
toxicologists etc.  Petitioner raised the  contention  that  the  objection
raised by it was considered by the Committee whose title is the  Scientific
Panel on Labelling and Claims/Advertising, even though the  Food  Authority
has a panel with the words “Food Additives” in its title.  We find not much
force in this contention, when we examine the credentials of the members of
the scientific panel on labelling/advertising.  Further, we notice that the
grievances were examined by the experts who are scientific experts, not  by
the  members  of  the  panel  chosen,  who   are   only   conversant   with
labelling/advertising etc.  In any view, we notice that  the  Act  provides
for a machinery for examining the grievances and if a citizen has  got  any
complaint with regard to  the  ingredients  of  any  soft  drinks,  he  can
approach the machinery.   Section 40 of FSS Act also enables the  purchaser
of any article of food to get analyzed such  food  from  the  Food  Analyst
after informating the food business operator at the time of purchase of his
intention to have such article so analyzed.    The  Statute  also  provides
penal provisions in case there is a contravention or non-compliance of  the
regulations framed.

8.    FSS Act has been enacted to consolidate laws relating to food and  to
establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority in India for laying  down
science based standards for articles of food.  The Act is also intended  to
regulate the manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure
availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption.     The  Act
is  based  on  international  legislations,  instrumentalities  and   Codex
Alimentarius Commission (CAC).  CAC was created in 1961/62 by the Food  and
Agricultural Organization of United Nations (FAO) and WHO  to  develop  the
food standards, guidelines and related texts  such  as  codes  of  practice
under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.   The main  purpose  this
programme is to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair  practices  in
the food trade,  and  promote  coordination  of  all  food  standards  work
undertaken   by    international    governmental    and    non-governmental
organizations.  “Codex India” the National Codex Contact Point  (NCCP)  for
India, coordinates and promotes Codex activities in  India  in  association
with the National Codex Committee and facilitates India’s input to the work
of Codex through an established consultation process.

9.    The Act empowered the  Central  Government  to  constitute  the  Food
Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter being referred  to  as
“the Food Authority”) under Section 4 of the FSS Act.  The  Food  Authority
is also authorised to constitute a  Central  Advisory  Committee,  so  also
Scientific Panels.  Section  13  of  the  FSS  Act  states  that  the  Food
Authority  shall  establish  scientific  panels  which  shall  consist   of
independent  scientific  experts  with  representatives  of  industry   and
consumer organisations in its deliberations.  The Food Authority  may  also
establish as many scientific panels, as it considers necessary, in addition
to panels on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials  in
contact  with  food;  pesticides  and  antibiotics  residues.    The   Food
Authority, under Section 14 of the FSS Act, can also constitute  Scientific
Committee  consisting  of  Chairpersons  of  Scientific  Panels   and   six
independent scientific experts not  belonging  to  any  of  the  scientific
panels.  The Committee shall be responsible for  providing  the  scientific
opinions to the Food Authority and shall have  the  powers  for  organising
public hearings.   The Scientific Committee shall provide opinion on multi-
sectoral issues falling within the competence of more than  one  Scientific
Panel and set up working  groups  on  issues  which  does  not  fall  under
scientific panels.  The duties and functions of  the  Food  Authority  have
been elaborately dealt with in Section 16 of the FSS Act, which states that
it shall be the duty of the Food Authority  to  regulate  and  monitor  the
manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and import of food,  and  shall
specify, by regulations,  the  standards  and  guidelines  in  relation  to
articles  of  food,  mechanisms  and  guidelines   for   accreditation   of
certification bodies engaged in certification  of  food  safety  management
systems for food businesses and notify the accredited laboratories etc.

10.   Chapter III deals with the general principles of  food  safety.   The
said provisions are extracted hereunder for an easy reference:
    “                                CHAPTER III
                      GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FOOD SAFETY
           18. General principles to be followed in administration of  Act.-
    The Central Government, the State Governments, the Food  Authority  and
    other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing  the  provisions
    of this Act shall be guided by the following principles, namely:-

    (1) (a) endeavour to achieve an  appropriate  level  of  protection  of
            human  life  and  health  and  the  protection  of   consumers'
            interests, including fair practices in all kinds of food  trade
            with reference to food safety standards and practices;


        (b)       carry out risk management which shall include taking  into
            account the results of risk assessment, and other factors which
            in the opinion of the Food Authority are relevant to the matter
            under consideration and where the conditions are  relevant,  in
            order to achieve the general objectives of regulations;


        (c)       where in any  specific  circumstances,  on  the  basis  of
            assessment of available information, the possibility of harmful
            effects on health  is  identified  but  scientific  uncertainty
            persists, provisional risk  management  measures  necessary  to
            ensure appropriate level of health protection may  be  adopted,
            pending further scientific information for a more comprehensive
            risk assessment;


        (d)       the measures adopted on the basis of clause (c)  shall  be
            proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required
            to achieve appropriate level of health protection, regard being
            had to technical and economic  feasibility  and  other  factors
            regarded  as  reasonable  and  proper  in  the   matter   under
            consideration;


        (e)       the measures adopted shall be reviewed within a reasonable
            period of time, depending on the nature of the risk to life  or
            health being identified and the type of scientific  information
            needed to clarify the scientific uncertainty and to  conduct  a
            more comprehensive risk assessment;


        (f)       in cases where there are  reasonable  grounds  to  suspect
            that a  food  may  present  a  risk  for  human  health,  then,
            depending on the nature, seriousness and extent of  that  risk,
            the Food Authority and the Commissioner of  Food  Safety  shall
            take appropriate steps to inform  the  general  public  of  the
            nature of the risk to health, identifying to the fullest extent
            possible the food or  type  of  food,  the  risk  that  it  may
            present, and the measures which are taken or about to be  taken
            to prevent, reduce or eliminate that risk; and


        (g)       where any food which fails  to  comply  with  food  safety
            requirements is part of a batch, lot or consignment of food  of
            the same class or description, it shall be presumed  until  the
            contrary is proved, that all of the food in that batch, lot  or
            consignment fails to comply with those requirements.


         (2)       The Food Authority shall, while  framing  regulations  or
    specifying standards under this Act-


     a)  take into account-


         (i)  prevalent practices and conditions in  the  country  including
            agricultural practices  and  handling,  storage  and  transport
            conditions; and
         (ii)     international standards and practices, where international
            standards or practices exist or are in  the  process  of  being
            formulated,


          unless it is of opinion that taking into account of such prevalent
          practices and conditions or international standards  or  practices
          or any particular part  thereof  would  not  be  an  effective  or
          appropriate means for securing the objectives of such  regulations
          or where there is a scientific justification or where  they  would
          result in a different level of protection from the one  determined
          as appropriate in the country;


       (b) determine food standards on the basis  of  risk  analysis  except
          where it is of opinion that such analysis is  not  appropriate  to
          the circumstances or the nature of the case;


       (c) undertake risk  assessment  based  on  the  available  scientific
          evidence and in an independent, objective and transparent manner;


       (d) ensure that there is open and  transparent  public  consultation,
          directly or through representative bodies including all levels  of
          panchayats, during the preparation,  evaluation  and  revision  of
          regulations, except where it  is  of  opinion  that  there  is  an
          urgency concerning food safety or public health to make  or  amend
          the regulations in which case such consultation may  be  dispensed
          with: Provided that such regulations shall be  in  force  for  not
          more than six months;


       (e) ensure protection of the interests of consumers and shall provide
          a basis for consumers to make informed choices in relation to  the
          foods they consume;


       (f) ensure prevention of-


          (i) fraudulent, deceptive or  unfair  trade  practices  which  may
             mislead or harm the consumer; and


          (ii) unsafe or contaminated or sub-standard food.


         (3) The provisions of this Act shall not apply  to  any  farmer  or
    fisherman or farming operations or crops or livestock  or  aquaculture,
    and supplies used or produced in farming or products of crops  produced
    by a farmer at farm level or a fisherman in his operations.”




11.   The general principles referred to above are to be  followed  in  the
administration of the Act, by the Central Government, the  Food  Authority,
the  State  Governments  and  other  agencies,   while   implementing   the
regulations and specifying food safety  standards  or  while  enforcing  or
implementing the provisions of the FSS  Act.   The  Food  Authority,  while
discharging its functions, shall take into account the prevailing practices
and  conditions  in  the  country,  including  agricultural  practices  and
handling,  storage  and  transport  conditions,   including   international
standards and practices.  The Food Authority shall be guided by the general
principles of food safety, such as, risk analysis,  risk  assessment,  risk
management, risk communication, transparent public consultation, protection
of consumers’ interest, etc.  Section 19 of  the  Act  stipulates  that  no
article of food shall contain any food additive or processing aid unless it
is in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Act  and  regulations  made
thereunder.

12.   Section 21 is of paramount importance and is extracted hereunder  for
an easy reference:
         “21. Pesticides, veterinary drugs residues, antibiotic residues and
    micro-  biological  counts.-(1) No  article  of  food   shall   contain
    insecticides  or  pesticides  residues,  veterinary   drugs   residues,
    antibiotic   residues,   solvent   residues,   pharmacological   active
    substances and micro- biological counts in  excess  of  such  tolerance
    limits as may be specified by regulations.


         (2) No insecticide shall be used directly on article of food except
    fumigants registered and approved under the Insecticides Act, 1968.


          Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-


           (1) "pesticide residue" means any specified  substance  in  food
              resulting from the  use  of  a  pesticide  and  includes  any
              derivatives of a  pesticide,  such  as  conversion  products,
              metabolites, reaction products and impurities  considered  to
              be of  toxicological  significance  and  also  includes  such
              residues coming into food from environment;


           (2) "residues of veterinary drugs" include the parent  compounds
              or their metabolites or both in any  edible  portion  of  any
              animal product and include residues of associated  impurities
              of the veterinary drug concerned.”

    The above mentioned section provides that  no  article  of  food  shall
contain insecticides or pesticides, veterinary drugs  residues,  antibiotic
residues, solvent residues, pharmacological active  substances  and  micro-
biological counts in excess of such tolerance limit as may be specified  by
the regulations.  It also  provides  that  no  insecticide  shall  be  used
directly on articles of food except fumigants registered and approved under
the Insecticide Act, 1968.


13.   Section 24 of the FSS Act deals with  restrictions  of  advertisement
and prohibition as to unfair trade practices and reads as follows:
         “24. Restrictions of advertisement and  prohibition  as  to  unfair
    trade practices.-  (1) No advertisement shall be made of any food which
    is misleading or deceiving or contravenes the provisions of  this  Act,
    the rules and regulations made thereunder.


         (2) No person shall engage himself in any unfair trade practice for
    purpose of promoting the sale, supply, use and consumption of  articles
    of food or  adopt  any  unfair  or  deceptive  practice  including  the
    practice of making any statement, whether orally or in  writing  or  by
    visible representation which-


            (a) falsely represents that  the  foods  are  of  a  particular
                standard, quality, quantity or grade- composition;


            (b) makes a false or misleading representation  concerning  the
                need for, or the usefulness;


            (c) gives to the public any guarantee of the efficacy  that  is
                not  based  on  an  adequate  or  scientific   justification
                thereof:


         Provided that where a defence is raised to  the  effect  that  such
    guarantee is based on adequate or scientific justification, the  burden
    of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence.”

    The above mentioned Section provides for restrictions on advertising of
any food which misleads or contravenes the provisions of the FSS Act or the
rules and regulations framed thereunder.   It also provides for prohibition
as to any unfair trade practice for the purpose of promoting sale,  supply,
use and consumption of articles of  food  or  adoption  of  any  unfair  or
deceptive practice to mislead the public regarding the standards,  quality,
quantity, usefulness or giving of any guarantee of the efficacy that is not
based on an adequate or scientific justification thereof.

14.   The Food Authority, in exercise of its powers conferred under  clause
(e) of sub-section (2) of Section 92 read with Section 16 of the  FSS  Act,
made the Food Safety  and  Standards  (Food  Products  Standards  and  Food
Additives) Regulations, 2011.  The same is intended to regulate and monitor
the manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and import of food so as to
ensure the safe and wholesome  food.   The  contents  of  soft  drinks,  in
particular, are regulated by Regulation 2.10.6 of the Regulations under the
title “Carbonated Water”.   Food  Authority  is  also  conferred  with  the
powers under clause (k) of sub-section (2) of Section 92 read with  Section
23 of FSS Act and in exercise of those powers it framed the Food Safety and
Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations,  2011.   Section  23  read
with  the  above  mentioned  regulations  provides  that  no  person  shall
manufacture, distribute, sale or expose for sale or despatch or deliver  to
any agent or broker for the purpose of sale,  any  packaged  food  products
which are not marked and labelled in the manner, as may be  specified.   It
further provides that every food business operator shall  ensure  that  the
labelling  and  presentation  of  food  does  not  mislead  the  consumers.
Section 24, which  we  have  already  referred  to  earlier,  provides  for
restriction on advertisement of any food which misleads or contravenes  the
provisions of the FSS Act or the rules  and  regulations  made  thereunder.
Advertisements  for  carbonated  beverages  are  being  monitored  by   the
Advertisement Standards Council of India (ASCI), as per the above mentioned
regulations as well as the ASCI Code.


15.   We may indicate that most of the situations have already  been  taken
care of by the above mentioned provisions of the FSS Act  as  well  as  the
regulations mentioned hereinbefore, so as to achieve an  appropriate  level
of protection of  human  life  and  health  and  protection  of  consumers’
interest, including fair  practices  in  all  counts  of  food  trade  with
reference to food safety standards and practices.


16.   The manufacture and sale of carbonated soft drinks  is  regulated  by
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act), the PFA Rules  and
the Fruit Products Order, 1955 issued under the Essential Commodities  Act,
1955.   Section 3 of the PFA Act provides for constitution of  a  Committee
called the Central Committee for Food Standards  (CCFS)  and  the  same  is
already constituted which has very wide powers, to deal  with  all  matTers
relating to food items and to advise the Central Government and  the  State
Governments on all matters relating to Food and  to  carry  out  the  other
functions assigned to it under the Act.   Section  23(1)  of  the  PFA  Act
enjoins a duty upon the Central Government,  after  consultation  with  the
CCFS, to make rules which, inter alia, prescribes standards of quality  for
340 food items in Appendix B and the labelling requirements for  all  foods
in Part VII.  Under Rule 44 in Part VIII of the  PFA  Rules,  notifications
have been issued from time to time regulating or prohibiting  the  sale  of
various ingredients/foods keeping in view  the  specific  nature  of  those
ingredients/foods based upon scientific study.  CCFS and its sub-committees
on various issues are not only seized of the process  of  implementing  the
standards but are also involved in regularly reviewing  the  standards  and
various additives that  are  used  in  the  manufacture/processing  of  any
article of food.


17.   The PFA Act, the PFA Rules and the FPO already control and check  the
contents, in particular chemical additives in food including  soft  drinks.
Section 2(v) of the Act defines “food”.  This definition also  includes  in
itself any flavouring matter or condiments.   The  Central  Government  has
been given the power to notify any other articles which  having  regard  to
its use, nature, substance or quality  to  be  declared  as  food  for  the
purposes of this Act.  The Central Government has the power  under  Section
23 of the Act to take steps under Part VII of the PFA Rules to prohibit and
regulate the sale of certain foods.

18.   Adequate provisions have already been made and Rules and  Regulations
are in force for prescribing labelling requirements as per Rule 32 to  Rule
44 of PFA Rules, 1955.  As per Rule  32  of  PFA  Rules,  as  amended  vide
notification GSR (E) dated 19.9.2008, declaration of all the ingredients of
the food products and in particular soft drinks, is required to be made  in
the descending order and Nutritional Information is  also  required  to  be
declared.


    Adequate provisions are also in place under PFA together with the Rules
and Regulations made in that behalf to deal with misleading advertisements.
 Reference may also be made to Rule 43A of PFA Rules, 1955.

19.   Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to  live
with dignity.  The right to live with human dignity denies the life  breach
from the Directive Principles of the State Policy, particularly clauses (e)
and (f) of Article 39 read with Article 47 of the  Constitution  of  India.
Article 47 reads as follows:
         “47. Duty of the State to raise the  level  of  nutrition  and  the
    standard of living and to improve  public  health.-   The  State  shall
    regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living
    of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary
    duties and, in particular, the State shall  endeavour  to  bring  about
    prohibition  of  the  consumption  except  for  medicinal  purposes  of
    intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”

20.   Article 12 of the International Covenant  on  Economics,  Social  and
Cultural Rights, 1966 reads as follows:
    “12.- (1) The States Parties to  the  present  Covenant  recognize  the
    right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest  attainable  standard
    of physical and mental health.


           (2)   The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present
    Covenant to achieve the full realization of this  right  shall  include
    those necessary for:
             (a) The provision for the reduction of  the  still  birth-rate
                 and of infant mortality and for the healthy development  of
                 the child;


             (b) The  improvement  of  all  aspects  of  environmental  and
                 industrial hygiene;


             (c)  The  prevention,  treatment  and  control  of   epidemic,
                 endemic, occupational and other diseases;


             (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to a medical
                 service and medical attention in the event of sickness.”


21.   We may  emphasize  that  any  food  article  which  is  hazardous  or
injurious to public health is a potential danger to the  fundamental  right
to life guaranteed under Article  21  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   A
paramount duty is cast on the States and  its  authorities  to  achieve  an
appropriate level of protection  to  human  life  and  health  which  is  a
fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens under  Article  21  read  with
Article 47 of the Constitution of India.


22.   We are, therefore, of the view that the provisions of the FSS Act and
PFA Act and  the  rules  and  regulations  framed  there under  have  to  be
interpreted and applied in the  light  of  the  Constitutional  Principles,
discussed above and endeavour has to be  made  to  achieve  an  appropriate
level of protection of human life and health.  Considerable  responsibility
is cast on the Authorities as well as the other officers functioning  under
the above mentioned Acts to achieve the desired  results.  Authorities  are
also obliged to maintain a  system  of  control  and  other  activities  as
appropriate to the circumstances, including public  communication  on  food
safety and risk, food safety surveillance and other  monitoring  activities
covering all stages of food business.

23.   Enjoyment of life and its attainment, including  right  to  life  and
human dignity encompasses, within its ambit  availability  of  articles  of
food,  without  insecticides  or  pesticides  residues,  veterinary   drugs
residues,  antibiotic  residues,  solvent  residues,  etc.   But  the  fact
remains, many of the food articles like rice, vegetables, meat, fish, milk,
fruits available in the market contain insecticides or pesticides residues,
beyond the tolerable limits, causing serious health  hazards.   We  notice,
fruit based soft drinks available in various  fruit  stalls,  contain  such
pesticides residues in alarming proportion, but no  attention  is  made  to
examine its contents.  Children and infants are uniquely susceptible to the
effects of pesticides because of their physiological immaturity and greater
exposure to soft drinks, fruit based or otherwise.

24.   We, therefore, direct the Food  and  Safety  Standards  Authority  of
India, to gear up their resources with their counterparts in all the States
and Union Territories and conduct periodical inspections and monitoring  of
major fruits and vegetable markets, so as to ascertain whether they conform
to such standards set by the Act and the Rules.

25.   Penal provisions are also provided in the Act.  It is, therefore,  of
utmost importance  that  the  provisions  of  the  Acts  are  properly  and
effectively implemented so that the State can achieve an appropriate  level
of human life and health, safeguarding the right to life  guaranteed  under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.


26.   The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above  directions,  leaving
its respondents, as already indicated, to strictly follow the provisions of
the FSS Act as well as the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.


                                         ...................................
                                         J.
                                         (K. S. Radhakrishnan)






                                         ...................................
                                         J.
                                          (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi,
October 22, 2013.

Industrial Disputes Act sec. 25F,25FF sec.25N and Section 17B of I.D. Act - Estopel - State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Appellants Versus Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli & Ors. … Respondents = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40894

Industrial Disputes Act sec. 25F,25FF  sec.25N and Section 17B of I.D. Act - Estopel - Already decided case attained finality - and same was applied with some suitable modifications = Retrenchment of labours temporary having serice of more than 10 years of service with out sufficient notice and with out payment of damages on the trasfer of Unit - are entitled for reinstatement with back wages at 25%
The  process
of  pumping  water  is  specifically  covered  under   the   definition   of
“manufacturing process” under Section 2 (k)(ii) of The Factories Act,  1948.
 Thus, the workmen concerned were  engaged  in  a  “manufacturing  process”.
Once that is established, it follows that the activity  of  the  undertaking
in which they were working, constituted a “factory” within  the  meaning  of
Section 2(m) of the said Act.
(ii)  The explanation (i) to Section 25A  of  I.D.  Act,  1947,  covers  the
“factories” within the definition  of  an  “industrial  establishment”,  and
therefore Chapter VA  of  the  I.D.  Act,  1947  applies  to  “manufacturing
process” of pumping water. Hence, it cannot be denied that  the  undertaking
in  which  the  workmen  concerned  were  employed  was  covered  under  the
provisions of I.D. Act.
20.         It is, however, contended on behalf of the  appellant  that  the
said undertaking was being run by the irrigation  department  of  the  first
appellant, and the activities of the  irrigation  department  could  not  be
considered to be an “industry” within the definition of  the  concept  under
Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.  
As noted earlier, the reconsideration of  the
wide interpretation of the concept of “industry” in Bangalore  Water  Supply
and Sewerage Board (supra) is pending before a larger bench of  this  Court.
However, as of now  we  will  have  to  follow  the  interpretation  of  law
presently holding the field as per the  approach  taken  by  this  Court  in
State  of  Orissa  v.  Dandasi  Sahu  (supra),  referred   to   above. 
  The
determination of the present  pending  industrial  dispute  cannot  be  kept
undecided until the judgment of the larger bench is received.
In the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  present  case  also,
accepting that the termination did result on  account  of  transfer  of  the
undertaking, the relief to be given to the workmen will have to  be  moulded
to be somewhat similar to that given to the other group of 10  workmen.
 It
will not be just and proper to restrict it to the  rigours  of  the  limited
relief under Section 25FF read with 25F  of  the  I.D.  Act.
 Prior  to  the
termination of their services on 30.6.1985, many of  the  workmen  concerned
had put in a service of about 10 years.
Inasmuch  as  so  many  years  have
gone since then, most of them must have reached the age  of  superannuation.
In the circumstances, there cannot be any order of  reinstatement.
However,
they will be entitled to continuity of service, and although they have  been
receiving last drawn wages under S 17 B of the I.D Act, 1947, they  will  be
entitled to 25% backwages and retirement benefits on par with the  other  10
workmen.  Award  of  25%  backwages  in  their   case   will   be   adequate
compensation.
In the circumstances, we dispose of the two appeals against  the
impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the  Bombay  High
Court, dated 14.9.2004, in Writ Petition No.2699  of  1993,  which  is  left
undisturbed by the Division Bench, by passing the following order:-

 (i)    The 163 workmen concerned in the present matter, will be placed  into
three categories, i.e., 
(a) those  who  have  already  reached  the  age  of superannuation; 
(b) those who are yet to reach the  age  of  superannuation;
and 
(c) those who have expired.  
They will be entitled  to  the  reliefs  in
the following manner.
(ii)   The benefits to the workmen in category (a) will be till the date  of
their superannuation,
 for category (b) till the date of this  judgment,  and
for those in category (c) till the date of expiry of the workman concerned.
(iii)  The  workmen  of  all  the  three  categories  will  be  entitled  to
continuity of service until the date of superannuation, or  until  the  date
of this judgment, or until the date  on  which  the  workman  concerned  has
expired, as the case maybe.
(iv)   All the workmen will be entitled to 25% backwages over and above  the
last drawn wages that they have received under Section 17B of I.D. Act.  
The
back wages shall be calculated until the date as mentioned  in  clause  (iii)
above.
(v)   All the workmen will be entitled to the same retirement  benefits,  if
any (depending on their eligibility), as given to  the  other  group  of  10
workmen viz. Pandurang Vishnu Sandage and others.
(vi)  All the aforesaid payments shall  be  made  directly  to  the  workmen
concerned or their heirs, as the case maybe, within three  months  from  the
date of this judgment.
(vii) There shall not be any order of reinstatement.
(viii)      The appellants will, thereafter, file  a  compliance  report  in
the Labour Court at Sangli, with a copy thereof  to  the  Registry  of  this
Court.
(ix)  Order accordingly.
(x)   Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Labour Court,  Sangli.

30.         Both the appeals and all the I.As. moved therein stand  disposed

off as above, with no order as to costs.

                                                                 REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2565 OF 2006

State of Maharashtra & Anr.                        …   Appellants

                                    Versus

Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli & Ors.                 …   Respondents


                                    WITH

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.2566 OF 2006

Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli                        …   Appellant

                                   Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        …   Respondents




                          J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T


H.L. Gokhale J.


             Civil Appeal No.2565 of 2006 seeks to  challenge  the  judgment
and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by a Division  Bench  of  the  Bombay  High
Court in Letter Patents Appeal No.184 of 2005, as well as the  judgment  and
order dated 14.9.2004 passed by a Single Judge of that High  Court  in  Writ
Petition No.2699 of 1993, wherefrom the said
Letters  Patent  Appeal  arose.
The said Writ Petition had been filed by the respondents  to  challenge  the
award dated 21.5.1992 rendered by the  Labour  Court,  Sangli,  in  a  group
Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  (I.D.  Act,  for  short).
The learned Single Judge had allowed the said Writ Petition,  by  the  above
referred  order,  and  the  Division  Bench  had  left  the  said   decision
undisturbed.
2.           The  State  of   Maharashtra   through   Secretary   Irrigation
Department, and Executive Engineer Irrigation Department,  Sangli,  are  the
appellants herein, whereas  Sarva  Shramik  Sangh,  Sangli,  a  Trade  Union
representing the workmen concerned, and two of the workmen in the  concerned
Industrial Establishment are the respondents to this appeal.
Facts leading to this appeal are this wise:-

3.          The Government of Maharashtra established  a  corporation  named
as the Irrigation Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited,  sometimes
in  December  1973.
This  Corporation  was  a  Government  of  Maharashtra
undertaking.  It set up 25 lift irrigation schemes to provide free  services
to farmers.  
The corporation was established in the aftermath of a  terrible
drought which afflicted the State in the year 1972.
Some 256  workmen  were
employed to work on the irrigation schemes of the said Corporation.   Though
it was claimed that the workmen were casual and temporary, the fact  remains
that many of them had put in about  10  years  of  service  when  they  were
served with notices of termination by the appellant No.2 on 15.5.1985.   
The
notice sought to terminate their  services  w.e.f.  30.6.1985,  and offered them 15  days  compensation  for  every  completed  year  of  service.   
The
retrenchment was being effected because  according  to  the  appellants  the
lift irrigation schemes, on which these workmen  were  working,  were  being
transferred to a sugar factory  viz.  Vasantdada  Shetkari  Sahakari  Sakhar
Karkhana, Sangli.
4.          It is not  disputed  that  some  of  the  workmen  accepted  the
retrenchment compensation, though a large number of them did not.
 Some  163
out of them filed Writ Petition bearing No.2376 of 1985, through  the  first
respondent Trade Union, against  the  above  referred  Corporation  and  the
appellants, seeking to  restrain  the  transfer  of  the  undertaking.
The
petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and hence, a  Special  Leave
Petition was preferred to  this  Court  being  SLP  No.1386  of  1986.  
 The
appellants defended the said petition  by  pointing  out  that  the  workmen
concerned were not employees of the Corporation, but were employees  of  the State.  
This Court, therefore, dismissed the said SLP  by  its  order  dated
11.11.1986 by observing as follows:-
                 “Having regard to the statement in the counter affidavit of
           the Executive engineer,  the  State  of  Maharashtra,  that  the
           Petitioners were employees of the State and not the Corporation,
           we do not see how the reliefs sought against the Corporation can
           be granted in this petition.  If the Petitioners desire to  seek
           any reliefs against the State Government and if such  relief  is
           permissible, the Petitioners are at liberty to seek  appropriate
           legal remedy in the matter.  The SLP is, therefore, disposed  of
           accordingly.”


5.          This led  the  workmen  to  seek  Reference  of  the  Industrial Dispute under the I.D. Act.
These References  were  numbered  as  Ref.  I.D.
Nos.27 to 40, 42 to 70, 72 to 99/97, 1/88 to 35, 54, 63, 65, 72 to  92,  106
to 118/88, 17 to 29/89, 37, 38, 40 to 44/89 covering 163 applicants.
6.          In these References, it was contended on behalf of  the  workmen
that their retrenchment was illegal, inasmuch  as  the  requirement  of  the
adequate statutory notice as required under the I.D. Act, was  not  complied
with.
On the face of it, there was a shortfall of a few days in giving  the
notice.
The learned Labour Court Judge noted that the notices  were  issued
on 25.6.1985, and  the  services  were  terminated  w.e.f.  30.6.1985.   
The
workmen contended  that  the  lift  irrigation  schemes  wherein  they  were
working, were in fact Industrial Establishments, and that inasmuch  as  more
than 100 workmen were employed therein, the provision of Section 25N of  the
I.D. Act (which requires three months’ advance notice prior to  termination)
was applicable, but had not been complied with.   
The learned Judge  of  the
Labour Court did not deal with that submission, but held that  in  any  case
there was a violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, inasmuch as  not  even
one month’s notice had been given and hence the termination was illegal.
7.          In the Written Statement filed by the appellant No.2 before  the
Labour Court, it was stated  in  paragraph  3,  that  various  schemes  were
carried out by the State Government at its own expense.  
In paragraph  4  it
was  contended  that  the  workmen  concerned  were  the  employees  of  the
Irrigation Department.  
In paragraph 14 thereof, it  was  stated  that  “the
termination is not by way of victimization but as the irrigation scheme  has
been  transferred  to  Shetkari  Sahakari  Sakhar  Karkhana,   Sangli,   the
employees are not entitled to retain in the services without any work.”
8.          In the written statement there  was  no  specific  reference  to
Section 25FF of the I.D. Act which deals with the transfer of  undertakings.
 There was no reference to the said section in the judgment of  the  learned
Judge either.
We may however note that the learned  Judge  has  noted  this
submission of the appellants in paragraph 8 of her order  in  the  following
words:-
                 “8.…..However, in the present case, it is  clear  that  all
           those schemes where the Second Party workmen were  working  were
           sold by the State Government to the Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari
           Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli and on said reason  their  services
           were terminated.  As such, it is clear that  those  schemes  are
           transferred to the Sugar Industry.  Hence, there is  no  control
           of the First Party employer on those schemes…….”

9.          The learned Judge, however, noted that  workmen  concerned  were
 employed on a temporary basis.  Having noted that, the learned Judge relied
 upon a judgment of Karnataka High Court between Workmen of  Karnataka  Agro
 Protines Ltd. v. Karnataka Agro Proteins Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1992 LLJ
 page 712, on the application of Section 25F and 25FF,  and  held  that  the
 only claim that the workmen could make was for compensation.
The  Karnataka
 High Court had referred to and followed the law laid down in Anakapalle Co-
 operative Agricultural and Industrial Society  Ltd.  v.  Workmen  and  Ors.
 reported in AIR 1963 SC 1489, and also  the  subsequent  judgment  of  this
 court in Central Inland Water Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen  and  another
 reported in (1974) 4  SCC  696  to  the  same  effect.
The  Labour  Court,
 therefore, directed that there would not  be  any  reinstatement,  but  the
 workmen will be given the compensation in accordance with  Section  25F  of
 the I.D. Act.  
The Award of the Labour Court reads as follows:-
                 “Award:


              I) The claim is partly allowed.


             II) All the employees are entitled to receive the  retrenchment
                 compensation under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes  Act,
                 1947 after calculating their service period with the  First
                 Party.  The remaining claim stands rejected.


            III) However,  the  First  Party  is  hereby  directed  to  give
                 preference to all those employees whenever some  additional
                 work to new project are started or work is available.


             IV) It is informed that some employees have died.   In  respect
                 of such employees their legal heirs are entitled to receive
                 the compensation amount.


              V) The award be implemented within in a month from the date of
                 publication of this Award.

             VI) No order as to costs.”

10.         Being aggrieved by that  judgment  and  order,  the  respondents
filed Writ Petition bearing No.2699 of 1993 before a  Single  Judge  of  the
Bombay High Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution  of  India.   The
learned Single Judge who heard the matter took the view that
  the process  of
pumping  water  wherein  the  workmen   were   employed,   amounted   to   a
‘manufacturing process’ under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act,  1948,  and
therefore, the lift irrigation schemes were in the nature of a ‘factory’  as
defined under Section 2(m) of  the  said  Act,  and  hence,  an  ‘Industrial
Establishment’ to which the I.D. Act applied.
11.         The learned Single Judge then held that since according  to  the
State Government, the workmen were employed by  the  Irrigation  Department,
the plea that their services were required to be terminated  on  account  of
the  transfer of the undertaking could not be accepted.   This  was  on  the
footing since the other activities of the  Irrigation  Department  continued
even after  the  transfer  of  the  lift  irrigation  schemes,  the  workmen
concerned  could  certainly  be  absorbed  into  other  activities  of   the
irrigation department.
12.         The  learned  Single  Judge  observed  that  the  plea  invoking
Section 25FF could not  be  permitted  to  be  raised  in  the  High  Court,
inasmuch as transfer was a mixed question of facts  and  law.  According  to
the learned Judge, it was a case of breach of Section 25N,  and  not  merely
25F of the I.D. Act.
Section 25N lays  down  the  conditions  precedent  to
retrenchment of workmen from Industrial  Establishments  wherein  more  than
100 workmen are employed, and sub-section (1)(a) thereof provides for  three
months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof in  the  event  of  retrenchment.
The
learned Judge, therefore, set-aside the award, since three  months’  advance
notice or pay was not given, and held that  the  workmen  were  entitled  to
reinstatement with continuity of service.  The  learned  Judge  awarded  25%
backwages to the workmen.  
The operative part of the order  of  the  learned
Judge as contained in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the judgment reads as follows:-

                 “11. 
The award dated 21st May 1992  passed  by  the  Labour
           Court, Sangli is  set  aside.   
The  workmen  concerned  in  the
           References are entitled  to  reinstatement  with  continuity  of
           service and 25% backwages.  
All workmen who  are  interested  in
           employment must report for duty within two months from the  date
           of this order.  
The Respondents will  give  them  employment  by
           reinstating them with  continuity  of  service  within  a  month
           thereafter.  
Backwages shall be paid to the workmen, computed at
           25% within three months of their reinstatement in service.
                 
12.   There are some workmen  who  have  been  absorbed  in
           other departments  of  the  State  Government  or  have  secured
           employment elsewhere.  
These workmen shall be paid 25% backwages
           till the date they secured employment  within  six  months  from
           today.
                 
13.   A  few  workmen  have  already  reached  the  age  of
           superannuation during the pendency of these  proceedings.   
They
           shall be paid the backwages computed at 25% till the  date  they
           attained the age of  superannuation  within  three  months  from
           today.
                 
14.   I am informed that some workmen have  expired  during
           the pendency of the proceedings in court.  
The Respondents shall
           pay to the heirs of these workmen 25% of  back  wages  upto  the
           date of death of these workmen within three months from today.”

13.         It is this order which was  challenged  in  the  Letters  Patent
Appeal.  The Division Bench, however, took the view that  a  Letters  Patent
Appeal was not available against an order passed on the Wirt Petition  filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore dismissed  the
said Letters Patent Appeal.
 Being aggrieved by this order of  the  Division
Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge, this appeal  has  been  filed.
Leave was granted in this matter on  8.5.2006,  and  the  operation  of  the
impugned order was stayed subject to the compliance  of  the  provisions  of
Section 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The appeal has been pending since  then,
and a number of I.As have been filed  by  both  parties.   When  the  appeal
reached for final hearing, Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned counsel  appeared  for
the appellants, and Mr. Vinay  Navare,  learned  counsel  appeared  for  the
respondents.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:-
14.         The principal submission of Ms. Madhavi Diwan,  learned  counsel
for the appellants is that this is a case of  transfer  of  an  undertaking.
That was the very plea taken in paragraph 14 of  the  written  statement  as
noted above, and also reflected in the judgment of the  Labour  Court.   The
learned Single Judge had clearly erred in ignoring  this  fact.   Ms.  Diwan
submitted that in fact it was also the case of  the  respondents  themselves
that retrenchment of their services took place because of  the  transfer  of
the undertaking.  She submits that the lift irrigation  schemes  constituted
an undertaking, and the ownership of the management of the  undertaking  was
being transferred, and it  was  not  relevant  that  the  ownership  of  the
Irrigation Department Corporation was not being transferred.  Therefore,  in
her submission it is the Section 25FF which applies  to  the  present  case,
and neither Section 25N nor Section 25F.
Besides, Section 25F  would  apply
only as a measure of compensation that is to be provided  for,  and  nothing
more as laid down by a  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Anakapalle
Society’s  case  (supra).   
In  that  matter  this  Court  has  observed  in
paragraph 16 as follows:-
               “16. The Solicitor-General contends that the question in the
          present appeal has now to  be  determined  not  in  the  light  of
          general principles of industrial adjudication, but by reference to
          the specific provisions of s. 25FF itself. He argues, and we think
          rightly, that the first part of the section postulates that  on  a
          transfer of the ownership or management  of  an  undertaking,  the
          employment of workmen engaged by the said undertaking comes to  an
          end, and it provides for the payment of compensation to  the  said
          employees because of  the  said  termination  of  their  services,
          provided, of course, they satisfied the  test  of  the  length  of
          service prescribed by the section. The said part further  provides
          the manner in which and the extent to which the said  compensation
          has  to  be  paid.  Workmen  shall  be  entitled  to  notice   and
          compensation in accordance with the provisions  of  s. 25-F,  says
          the section, as if they  had  been  retrenched.  The  last  clause
          clearly brings out the fact that the termination of  the  services
          of the employees does not in law amount to retrenchment  and  that
          is consistent with the decision  of  this  Court  in  Hariprasad's
          case  [1957]1SCR121 : AIR 1957 SC 121. The  Legislature,  however,
          wanted  to  provide  that  though  such  termination  may  not  be
          retrenchment technically so-called,  as  decided  by  this  Court,
          nevertheless  the  employees  in  question  whose   services   are
          terminated by the transfer of the undertaking should  be  entitled
          to  compensation,  and  so,   s. 25-FF provides   that   on   such
          termination compensation would be paid to  them  as  if  the  said
          termination was retrenchment. 
The words  "as  if"  bring  out  the
          legal distinction between retrenchment defined by  s. 2(oo) as  it
          was  interpreted  by  this  Court  and  termination  of   services
          consequent upon transfer with which it deals.
 In other words,  the
          section provides that though termination of services  on  transfer
          may not be retrenchment, the workmen  concerned  are  entitled  to
          compensation as if the said  termination  was  retrenchment.  
This
          provision has been made for the purpose of calculating the  amount
          of compensation payable to such workmen; rather than  provide  for
          the measure of compensation over again, s. 25FF makes a  reference
          to s. 25-F for that limited purpose, and, 
therefore, in all  cases
          to which s. 25FF applies, the only claim which  the  employees  of
          the transferred concern can  legitimately  make  is  a  claim  for
          compensation against their employers. 
No claim can be made against
          the transferee of the said concern.”


This  judgment  in  Anakapalle  (supra)  has  been   consistently   followed
thereafter, including in a recent judgment of this  Court  in  Maruti  Udyog
Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Ors. reported in 2005 (2) SCC 638.
Reply on behalf of the respondents:-
15.         As far as the respondents are concerned, they  have  principally
contended that Section 25FF has no application to the present case, and  the
learned Single Judge of the High Court has rightly held that this is a  case
which is covered under Section  25N.  
It  is  submitted  that  in  view  of
Section 25N(1)(a), the workmen had to be given three  months’  prior  notice
or notice pay.  That having not been done, and the  prior  permission  under
25N(1)(b) of  the   appropriate  government  not  having  been  sought,  the
retrenchment will have to held illegal under sub-Section (7)  of  25N.
The
learned Judge of the Labour Court had in any case held that it  was  a  case
of breach of Section 25F, and the High Court had held that it was a case  of
breach  of  Section  25N.  
Either   of   those   findings   justified   the reinstatement with full backwages.
Reliance was placed in  this  behalf  on
the judgment of this Court in Anoop Sharma  v.  Executive  Engineer,  Public
Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) reported in 2010 (5) SCC 497.
16.         However, more than that, the respondents have pointed  out  that
another set of 10 workmen (Pandurang Vishnu Sandage and  9  others)  working
on  the  same  lift  irrigation  schemes  had  subsequently  filed  separate
References in the Labour Court bearing Ref. (I.D.A.) No.37  to  45  of  1991
and 1 of 1992, and the Labour Court gave an award on 30.12.1996, that  those
10 workmen were entitled to reinstatement with 25% backwages.
That  judgment
was challenged by the State of Maharashtra by filing Writ  Petition  No.2729
of 1997.  The said Writ Petition was dismissed by a Single Judge  of  Bombay
High Court, relying upon the decision in Writ Petition No.2699  of  1993  in
the present matter.  An appeal was filed by  the  appellants  by  preferring
SLP (C) No.773 of 2006.  This Hon’ble Court dismissed the said  SLP  on  the
ground of delay.  A Review Petition  (Civil)  bearing  No.379  of  2006  was
filed. That was dismissed by the order passed on  26.9.2006.   Thereafter  a
Curative Petition No.164 of 2007 was filed. That also came to  be  dismissed
on 21.2.2008.  
It was, therefore, submitted that the  appellants  are  bound
by the decision in the aforesaid case of 10 workmen, and in  any  case  this
Court should not allow the present appeal as it will  lead  to  a  different
result in the case of workmen who are similarly situated.   
The  respondents
relied upon an order of this Court in the case of Warlu v.  Gangotribai  and
Anr. reported in 1995 (Supp) 1 SCC 37.
 It was  a  matter  relating  to  the
tenancy rights of the appellant,  concerning  the  land  spread  over  three
survey numbers, which belonged to the Respondent no.1. Three writ  petitions
arising out of the revenue proceedings filed by him were  dismissed  by  the
High Court.  Two SLPs therefrom were found to be time barred  and  therefore
dismissed.  As far as the third SLP is concerned,  this  Court  declined  to
entertain the same for the sole  reason  that  any  such  interference  will
result in making conflicting orders regarding tenancy  rights  in  the  same
land.  It was therefore, submitted by Mr. Navare, the  learned  counsel  for
the respondent that  the  appellants  should  suffer  by  the  principle  of
estoppel by record.
17.         In support of the contention that  the  orders  passed  by  this
Court in the case of the other 10 workmen should be followed in the  present
case, reliance was placed on paragraph 21 of  a  judgment  in  the  case  of
Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon v. Irtiza Hussain and Ors. reported in 2010 (14)  SCC
564.
The judgment impugned in that matter directing eviction of tenant  had
already been upheld in an earlier SLP, wherein the  Petitioner  was  also  a
party.  
Entertaining the  second  petition,  on  his  behalf,  would  have
amounted  to  reviewing  the  earlier  order  of  this  Court.
 This  Court
dismissed  the  petition  by  observing
 “The  law  does  not   permit   two
contradictory and inconsistent orders in the same case  in  respect  of  the
same subject matter”.
 It was therefore submitted  that  the  order  of  the
Labour Court in the case of the other 10 workmen had attained finality,  and
the appellants cannot be permitted to  take  a  different  position  in  the
present  matter  when  the  workmen  in  both  the  matters  were  similarly
situated.
18.         The appellants had submitted that the Irrigation  Department  is
not an industry.  In that behalf, it  was  pointed  out  on  behalf  of  the
workmen that it is too  late  to  raise  this  submission  in  view  of  the
judgment of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage  Board  v.  A.
Rajappa & Ors. reported in 1978 (2) SCC 213.
As against that,  the  counsel
for the appellants pointed out that the judgment in Bangalore  Water  Supply
(supra) is pending for re-consideration before a larger bench of this  Court
in view of the order passed by the Constitution Bench in
State  of  U.P.  v. Jai Bir Singh reported  in  2005  (5)  SCC  1.
The  respondents,  however,
submitted that in the meanwhile  the  judgment  in  Bangalore  Water  Supply
(supra)  will  have  to  be  followed  until  it  is  overruled,  since  the
proposition therein continues to hold good.
 Reliance  is  placed  in  that
behalf, on the approach adopted by this Court in  such  a  situation,  in  a
matter concerning Arbitration in State of Orissa v.  Dandasi  Sahu  reported
in 1988 (4) SCC 12.  In  that  matter  this  Court  has  held  that  in  the
exercise of this Court’s discretion under  Article  136,  it  would  not  be
justified to allow a party to further prolong or upset adjudication  of  old
and stale disputes till the decision of the larger bench is received.
Consideration of the rival submissions:-
19.         (i)  To begin with, we must  note  that  the  workmen  concerned
were engaged as pump operators and chowkidars etc.  on  25  lift  irrigation
schemes, which were carrying out the process of pumping water.
The  process
of  pumping  water  is  specifically  covered  under   the   definition   of
“manufacturing process” under Section 2 (k)(ii) of The Factories Act,  1948.
 Thus, the workmen concerned were  engaged  in  a  “manufacturing  process”.
Once that is established, it follows that the activity  of  the  undertaking
in which they were working, constituted a “factory” within  the  meaning  of
Section 2(m) of the said Act.
(ii)  The explanation (i) to Section 25A  of  I.D.  Act,  1947,  covers  the
“factories” within the definition  of  an  “industrial  establishment”,  and
therefore Chapter VA  of  the  I.D.  Act,  1947  applies  to  “manufacturing
process” of pumping water. Hence, it cannot be denied that  the  undertaking
in  which  the  workmen  concerned  were  employed  was  covered  under  the
provisions of I.D. Act.
20.         It is, however, contended on behalf of the  appellant  that  the
said undertaking was being run by the irrigation  department  of  the  first
appellant, and the activities of the  irrigation  department  could  not  be
considered to be an “industry” within the definition of  the  concept  under
Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.
As noted earlier, the reconsideration of  the
wide interpretation of the concept of “industry” in Bangalore  Water  Supply
and Sewerage Board (supra) is pending before a larger bench of  this  Court.
However, as of now  we  will  have  to  follow  the  interpretation  of  law
presently holding the field as per the  approach  taken  by  this  Court  in
State  of  Orissa  v.  Dandasi  Sahu  (supra),  referred   to   above. 
  The
determination of the present  pending  industrial  dispute  cannot  be  kept
undecided until the judgment of the larger bench is received.
21.          Having  stated  that  however,  the  objection  raised  by  the
appellants to the judgment rendered by the Single Judge of the  Bombay  High
Court is required to be looked into viz. that the appellants had effected  a
transfer of an undertaking which resulted into termination  of  services  of
the workmen concerned,  and  that  this  was  not  a  case  of  retrenchment
simpliciter.  It was submitted  that  the  25  lift  irrigation  schemes  by
themselves constitute an undertaking.  It may be that all the activities  of
irrigation department may not have been transferred,  but  a  separate  unit
thereof, consisting of these 25 lift irrigation  schemes,  has  come  to  be
transferred to a  sugar  factory.  As  held  in  Anakapalle  Society’s  case
(supra), in such a  matter  the  only  claim  which  the  employees  of  the
transferor concern can  legitimately  make,  is  a  claim  for  compensation
against the previous employer, since they are not being absorbed  under  the
new employer.  22.     Having stated this, we have also to note the  conduct
of the appellants.  It appears that  many  of  the  workmen  concerned  were
engaged  for  a  period  of  about  10  years.  Section  25FF   contemplates
compensation to be paid to the workmen on  account  of  their  retrenchment,
resulting from transfer of the undertaking.  The retrenchment,  however,  is
required to be effected only if the previous employer is not continuing  the
workmen concerned in any of his activities or establishments, or  when  they
are not being absorbed under the  new  employer.   Continuation  of  service
under the existing employer, or re-engagement under the new one,  should  be
the preferred  approach,  when  such  an  occasion  arises.  Termination  of
services should normally be the last resort. In the instant case, the  first
appellant – State Government, does not  appear  to  have  made  any  efforts
either to absorb  these  workmen  in  other  activities  of  the  irrigation
department, or to have insisted upon the sugar factory to absorb them.  This
is because the lift irrigation schemes were going to  be  continued  by  the
transferee sugar factory, and in any case the Irrigation  department  has  a
very large number of activities,  wherein  these  workmen  could  have  been
absorbed.  When the State Government is in  the  picture,  we  do  expect  a
little better attitude than the one which is often displayed  by  a  private
sector employer. It is possible  that,  in  a  given  situation,  the  State
Government may have its own economic compulsions which  justify  termination
of services. But, there must be either an  effort  to  absorb  such  surplus
workmen, or in  any  case  the  difficulties  of  the  Government,  if  any,
necessitating the termination, ought to be explained. We  do  not  find  any
such efforts or explanation placed on record.
23.         It is also material to note that the Labour Court  had  directed
the State Government to consider  the  absorption  of  these  workmen.   The
respondents have placed it on record  that  in  pursuance  of  a  subsequent
advertisement  for  employment  in  the  irrigation  department,  the  first
respondent-union had written to the authorities concerned  to  absorb  these
workmen, but the Government took  a  bureaucratic  attitude  to  inform  the
Union that no such decision could be taken, since the matter was pending  in
the Supreme Court.  This attitude was not expected from a Welfare State.
24.         In any case, having noted that another  petition  concerning  10
other workmen from the same lift irrigation schemes was dismissed,  and  SLP
and Curative Petitions, therefrom, were also dismissed,  a  question  arises
for this Court to consider that assuming this was  a  case  of  transfer  of
undertaking, should the relief to the affected workmen  be  restricted  only
to the compensation under Section 25F as required by S 25 FF.
25.         The learned counsel for the respondents has referred  to  a  few
cases arising out of revenue proceedings and the rent act,  indicating  what
should be the approach in such a  situation.   These  163  workmen  and  the
other 10 workmen viz. Pandurang Vishnu Sandage and others  were  working  on
the same lift irrigation schemes.  Those 10 workmen also  got  an  award  of
reinstatement with 25% backwages.   The  writ  petition  of  the  appellants
challenging that award was dismissed by the Bombay High Court, relying  upon
the judgment of the Single Judge in the present  mater.   The  SLP  and  the
Curative Petitions therefrom also came to  be  dismissed,  although  on  the
ground of gross delay.  The fact, however, remains that as far as  those  10
workmen are concerned, the order of relief in their case viz.  reinstatement
with  25%  backwages  and  continuity  in  service  was  left   undisturbed.
Therefore, a question arises - should the Government having  been  lethargic
in  the  case  of  those  10  workmen,  where  it  suffered  an   order   of
reinstatement with 25% backwages, be now permitted to insist  that  when  it
comes to these 163 workmen, who are similarly situated,  they  be  denied  a
comparable relief?
And in any case, should 
this Court treat  the  two  sets
of workmen differently, in the  matter  of  relief,  only  because  the  SLP
against some of them got dismissed on account  of  delay,  
whereas  the  SLP
concerning the others survived for final arguments?
26.         This Court has the authority to pass  an  appropriate  order  in
exercise of its jurisdiction for doing complete justice in a matter  pending
before it.  This authority under Article 142 of the Constitution  will  also
have to be read as coupled with a duty to do complete  justice  in  a  given
case.  In Food Corporation of India Worker’s Union v.  Food  Corporation  of
India & Anr. reported in 1996 (9) SCC 439,
this  Court  was  faced  with  a
situation where there was a delay in reinstatement of the specified  workmen
despite this Court’s earlier order.  This  was  because  of  long  delay  of
about 6 years in determining their identity, in the  proceeding  before  the
Industrial Tribunal.  Therefore, in view of the ‘human problem’ involved  in
the matter, the Court laid  down  a  procedure  for  identification  of  the
workmen with a view to do complete justice, and also directed  reinstatement
with backwages @ 70% of the ‘normal earnings’ of the workmen at piece  rate,
till their reinstatement.
In
L. Parameswaran v. Chief Personal Officer and ors. reported in 2008 (3)  SCC
649, 
the appellant had worked in an ex-cadre post for a very long time,  and
was reverted to his parent post, though  not  immediately  when  the  policy
decision to repatriate ex-cadre employees was taken.   Working  in  the  ex-
cadre post for a long time did not confer any  right  to  continue  in  that
post or for pay protection.  Considering, however, the long  time  spent  in
the ex-cadre post, this Court specifically invoked Article 142 to grant  him
protection of pay.
27.         In the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  present  case  also,
accepting that the termination did result on  account  of  transfer  of  the
undertaking, the relief to be given to the workmen will have to  be  moulded
to be somewhat similar to that given to the other group of 10  workmen.
 It
will not be just and proper to restrict it to the  rigours  of  the  limited
relief under Section 25FF read with 25F  of  the  I.D.  Act.
 Prior  to  the
termination of their services on 30.6.1985, many of  the  workmen  concerned
had put in a service of about 10 years.
Inasmuch  as  so  many  years  have
gone since then, most of them must have reached the age  of  superannuation.
In the circumstances, there cannot be any order of  reinstatement.
However,
they will be entitled to continuity of service, and although they have  been
receiving last drawn wages under S 17 B of the I.D Act, 1947, they  will  be
entitled to 25% backwages and retirement benefits on par with the  other  10
workmen.  Award  of  25%  backwages  in  their   case   will   be   adequate
compensation.
28.         Civil Appeal No.2566  of  2006  has  been  filed  by  the  above
referred Trade Union, the  respondent  in  Civil  Appeal  No.2565  of  2006,
against the same two judgments of the Single Judge and  the  Division  Bench
of Bombay High Court.
The Union is aggrieved  by  the  award  of  only  25%
backwages to the workmen, and seeks an order of 100%  backwages,  contending
that if the retrenchment is held to be bad in law, the backwages  could  not
be restricted  to  anything  less  than  100%  backwages.
 Mr.  Navare  has
appeared in support of this appeal, and Ms. Diwan  has  appeared  to  oppose
the same.  
As can be seen from the narration of facts above, 
 the  Union  is
claiming reliefs for the present group of workmen on  the  basis  of  parity
with the other group  of  10  workmen  viz.  Pandurang  Vishnu  Sandage  and
others, and that submission has been accepted  by  us.  
Those  workmen  have been awarded only 25% backwages.   
That  being  so,  the  present  group  of
workmen cannot be awarded back wages more than what have been awarded to  the
other  10  workmen.   
The  claim  for  award  of  higher  backwages  cannot, therefore, be entertained.
29.         In the circumstances, we dispose of the two appeals against  the
impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the  Bombay  High
Court, dated 14.9.2004, in Writ Petition No.2699  of  1993,  which  is  left
undisturbed by the Division Bench, by passing the following order:-
(i)    The 163 workmen concerned in the present matter, will be placed  into
three categories, i.e., (a) those  who  have  already  reached  the  age  of
superannuation; (b) those who are yet to reach the  age  of  superannuation;
and (c) those who have expired.  They will be entitled  to  the  reliefs  in
the following manner.
(ii)   The benefits to the workmen in category (a) will be till the date  of
their superannuation, for category (b) till the date of this  judgment,  and
for those in category (c) till the date of expiry of the workman concerned.
(iii)  The  workmen  of  all  the  three  categories  will  be  entitled  to
continuity of service until the date of superannuation, or  until  the  date
of this judgment, or until the date  on  which  the  workman  concerned  has
expired, as the case maybe.
(iv)   All the workmen will be entitled to 25% backwages over and above  the
last drawn wages that they have received under Section 17B of I.D. Act.  The
backwages shall be calculated until the date as mentioned  in  clause  (iii)
above.
(v)   All the workmen will be entitled to the same retirement  benefits,  if
any (depending on their eligibility), as given to  the  other  group  of  10
workmen viz. Pandurang Vishnu Sandage and others.
(vi)  All the aforesaid payments shall  be  made  directly  to  the  workmen
concerned or their heirs, as the case maybe, within three  months  from  the
date of this judgment.
(vii) There shall not be any order of reinstatement.
(viii)      The appellants will, thereafter, file  a  compliance  report  in
the Labour Court at Sangli, with a copy thereof  to  the  Registry  of  this
Court.
(ix)  Order accordingly.
(x)   Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Labour Court,  Sangli.

30.         Both the appeals and all the I.As. moved therein stand  disposed
off as above, with no order as to costs.

                                       …………..…………………..J.
                                       [  H.L. Gokhale  ]


                                               ……………………………J.

                                        [ Ranjan Gogoi]

New Delhi
Dated : October 21, 2013



-----------------------
28