Fci Handling Workers Union Through Its General Secretary Dr. Lakshman Singh vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Labour And Employment Through Joint Secretary

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......of 2016 $CC$ No(s). $136/2016$ (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/11/2015 in PIL No. 84/2014 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Nagpur) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) I.A. 1/2016(with permission to file SLP) WITH S.L.P.(C)...... of 2016 (CC No. 913/2016) (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P. (C) ........ of 2016 (CC No. $11465/2016$ ) (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and Office Report) Date: 08/07/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today. $CORAM :$ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Sibbal, Sr. Adv. $(CC 136)$ Mr. Arvind Nayar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Tahir, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.

• $(CC 913)$ Mr. R.M. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prateek Mohan Sinha, Adv. (CC 11465) Mr. Kameshwar Singh, Adv.
• Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Signature Not Verified $\frac{1}{1}$ $\mathsf{R}^{\mathsf{13:28:52}}{\mathsf{Reason}}(\mathsf{S}^{\mathsf{IS}}{\bullet}, \mathsf{O.I.})$ Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Adv. Mr. Meenesh Kumar Dubey, Adv.

SECTION IX

COURT NO.1

TTEM $NO.4$

Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma,Adv. (F.C.I.) Mr. Y.P. Rao,Adv. Mr. Om Prakash,Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra,Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Pathak,Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar S.,Adv. Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj,Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Heard.

Permission to file the special leave petitions is granted. SLP(C)No....... of 2016 (CC No.136 of 2016):

Issue notice.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar submits that Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma,Advocate, has already entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.1-U.O.I. Mr. Y.P. Rao, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondents no.3 to 6.

Notices to respondents no.2, 7 and 8 are dispensed with for the present.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar has already filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.1-U.O.I. He proposes to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record certain subsequent developments. He may do so within six weeks. Mr. Y.P. Rao may also file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. Post on a non-miscellaneous day after the needful is done.

2

We make it clear that the pendency of the present proceedings shall not prevent the petitioners from filing a petition, if so advised, to challenge the notification issued under Section 31 of the Act on all such grounds as are legally open to it.

Objections, if any, to the application for impleadment, be filed by learned counsel for the parties in the meantime.

SLP(C)No....... of 2016 (CC No.913 of 2016) & SLP(C)No....... of 2016 (CC No.11465 of 2016):

Issue notice.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1-U.O.I. Mr. Y.P. Rao, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of Food Corporation of India and its officers. Notices to the remaining respondents are dispensed with for the present.

Counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed by the petitioners within four weeks thereafter.

Post along with SLP(C)No...... of 2016 (CC 136 of 2016).

(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER