- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Food Corporation Of ... v. The Chairman Cum Man...
Factual and Procedural Background
This Letter Patents Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act challenges an interim order dated 06.02.2018 of a Single Judge in C.M. No.3868/2018 in Writ Petition (C) No.9260/2016 (the subject writ petition) titled "Food Corporation of India Handling Worker Union v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Food Corporation of India". The Single Judge restrained the Food Corporation of India (FCI) from making recoveries of incentives from its workmen in the Delhi region pursuant to circular Nos.8/2016 and 01/2017 dated 17.08.2016 and 17.01.2017 (the subject circulars). The appellant seeks extension of that injunction nationwide. The record before the Division Bench noted earlier decisions: a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (20.11.2015) and the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court (31.07.2017) in related proceedings; various other High Courts (Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta, Gauhati, Allahabad) had passed orders staying one or the other circulars within their jurisdictions, as asserted by the parties. The appeal was heard and judgment reserved; the present Bench considered principles of comity and forum convenience in refusing to extend the injunction nationwide.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, restraining FCI from recovering incentives in the Delhi region pursuant to circulars dated 17.08.2016 and 17.01.2017, should be extended to members of the appellant throughout India.
- Whether, having regard to principles of comity of courts, self-restraint and forum non conveniens, this High Court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory order with all-India effect when other High Courts have issued territorially limited orders and the full scope of those orders and related pleadings are not before this Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported as AIR 1989 SC 2138 | Principles of comity of courts; courts should have regard to comity, self-restraint and circumspection before granting injunctions affecting all-India issues or having nationwide ramifications. | Relied upon to emphasize that High Courts should exercise restraint and consider comity before granting interim orders with nationwide effect; guided the decision not to extend the injunction across India. |
| Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cal. 509 U.S. 764 | Comity refers to situations where judges decline to exercise jurisdiction over matters more appropriately adjudicated elsewhere. | Cited (via a Single Judge precedent) to explain the comity principle that may counsel declining to exercise jurisdiction where another forum is more appropriate. |
| Parsi v. Davidson 405 U.S. 34 | Under principles of comity, a court should stay its hand only if the relief sought would be available with reasonable promptness and certainty through an alternative forum. | Used to support the proposition that relief should be pursued where it can be obtained promptly and certainly through alternative machinery, informing the Court's reluctance to grant nationwide relief. |
| Wander Ltd. and Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd., reported as 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 | Governs the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions and non-interference with exercise of discretion unless arbitrary, capricious or perverse. | Cited to support the conclusion that the Single Judge's discretion was not exercised arbitrarily or perversely and should not be interfered with. |
| Max India Limited v. General Binding Corporation reported as 2009 (3) ArbLR 162 (Delhi) | Reference to forum non conveniens as a discretionary doctrine allowing courts to refuse jurisdiction where a more appropriate forum exists. | Referred to reinforce the Court's view that another forum may be more appropriate to adjudicate the nationwide relief sought. |
| P.I.L. No.84/2014 titled as "Court on its own motion v. Union of India and ors." (Bombay High Court) — judgment dated 20.11.2015 | Contained a clarification that the respondent/Corporation would be at liberty to implement its policy of change in the Scheme of incentives. | Noted as relevant antecedent; the decision and its scope were part of the factual matrix considered by the Bench. |
| Special Leave Petition (C) No.19218/2016 titled as "Food Corporation of India Workers Union Regd. No.8219 through its organizing Secretary v. Union of India" — order dated 31.07.2017 | The Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs but made clear petitioners retain liberty to challenge orders passed in furtherance of the directions issued in the impugned order; such claims to be considered in accordance with law. | Placed before the Court and considered in assessing the litigation history and available remedies; used to note that petitioners maintain liberty to pursue challenges in appropriate courts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the Single Judge's interim order restrained recoveries only in the Delhi region and that the appellant sought extension nationwide. The Bench observed that (i) arguments in the subject writ petition were concluded and judgment reserved; (ii) the appellant had not filed the subject writ petition or orders/pleadings from other High Courts before this Court; (iii) it was to be presumed that orders of other High Courts stayed the circulars only within their territorial jurisdictions; and (iv) different High Courts had stayed different circulars (some stayed the earlier circular dated 17.08.2016, others the modified circular dated 17.01.2017), so a nationwide stay by this Court could subsume the jurisdiction of those courts and lead to conflicting orders.
Applying principles of comity (as explained in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari and supporting authorities, including U.S. precedents cited by an earlier Single Judge), and forum non conveniens, the Bench concluded that the relief sought by the appellant would be more appropriately adjudicated elsewhere with reasonable promptness and certainty. The Court further held that the Single Judge's exercise of discretion was not arbitrary, capricious or perverse (citing Wander Ltd.), and therefore this Court would not interfere with that discretion. On these bases the Court exercised self-restraint and dismissed the appeal.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
Direct effect: The Letter Patents Appeal is dismissed; the interim order of the Single Judge restraining FCI from making recoveries in the Delhi region remains in place for the period specified by that order; the pending application is disposed of; and there is no order as to costs. Broader implication: The Court declined to grant an all-India injunction and exercised self-restraint based on comity and forum-convenience considerations. The opinion does not purport to lay down new nationwide norms or change settled principles of law beyond applying existing authorities to the facts.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 06.03.2018 Judgment Pronounced on:22.03.2018 LPA 77/2018 & C.M. No. 7728/2018
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA HANDLING WORKER UNION
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate along with Mr. P.M. Sinha, Advocate.
versus
THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Shri. Om Prakash, Advocate along with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Anil Kapoor, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
1
J U D G M E N T
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present Letter Patents Appeal under clause 10 of the Letter Patents Act assails an interim order dated 06.02.2018, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M. No.3868/2018 in Writ Petition (C) No.9260/2016 titled as "Food Corporation of India Handling Worker Union
v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Food Corporation of India"
(hereinafter referred to as the 'subject writ petition').
2. By way of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge considered it appropriate to allow the prayer made on behalf of the appellant in the said application, limited to the extent that the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'FCI') was restrained from making recoveries of incentives from their workmen in the Delhi region pursuant to their circular Nos.8/2016 and 01/2017 dated 17.08.2016 and 17.01.2017, respectively (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'subject circulars').
3. The appellant's grievance before us is limited to the extent that the learned Single Judge whilst staying the recovery of incentives by the FCI,
2
did not extend the operation of the said injunction to its members throughout the entire country.
4. In this behalf, it would firstly be relevant to note that in relation to the subject dispute before us, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, by way of its judgment dated 20.11.2015 in P.I.L. No.84/2014 titled as 'Court on its own motion v. Union of India and ors.', issued the following direction:
"(iv) We also clarify that the respondent/Corporation would be at liberty to implement its policy of change in the Scheme of incentives."
5. The said judgment dated 20.11.2015 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19218/2016 titled as "Food Corporation of India Workers Union Regd. No.8219 through its organizing Secretary v. Union of India through its Secretary", and the same came to be dismissed vide an order dated 31.07.2017, whilst observing as follows:
"1. We do not see any merit in these special leave petitions, which are hereby dismissed. We make it clear that this order shall not prevent the petitioners - Food Corporation of India Workers Union/Food Corporation of India Shramik Union/FCI Handling Workers Union, to challenge any order, passed in furtherance of the directions issued in the impugned order (dated 20.11.2015), in
3
appropriate proceedings before an appropriate Court.
2. In case, such a challenge is raised by the petitioner(s), in continuation of the liberty granted to the petitioner(s), the claim raised by the petitioner(s) shall be considered in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order (dated 20.11.2015)."
6. It would further be relevant to note that as recorded in the order of this Court dated 13.12.2017 passed in C.M. No.44791/2017 in W.P. (C) No.8495/2016 titled as 'Food Corporation of India Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.', it was submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the workers union before the learned Single Judge that the operation of the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016 has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati. Further, a submission was made on behalf of the FCI, to the effect, that recoveries are being made not in the terms of the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016 but in terms of the modified circular dated 17.01.2017. It was further submitted on behalf of the FCI that the modified circular dated 17.01.2017 was issued pursuant to the recommendations of a Committee, the report of which is also pending consideration.
7. In the pleadings before us, further reference has been made to an order dated 11.01.2018 of the High Court of Allahabad, and it has been stated that
4
the modified circular dated 17.01.2017 has been stayed by the said High Court.
8. In order to effectively adjudicate the subject dispute before us, reference may be made to the principles of comity of courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported as AIR 1989 SC 2138, observed in relation to the aspect of comity of courts and how the courts in different parts of the country should grant injunction or entertain applications affecting an all-India issue or having ramifications all over the country, as follows:
"106. Before we conclude, we must note that good deal of argument was adduced that these applications in different High Courts in civil suits were not genuine and properly motivated, but were mala fide. Even though these might not have been to feed fat an innocent object, it was apparent that it was to feed fat a grudge in respect of a competitive project by a competitor. Anyway, in the view we have taken, it is not necessary to decide the bona fides or mala fides of the applicants. Shri Nariman, when he moved the application initially, had suggested that we should lay down certain norms as to how the courts in different parts of the country should grant injunction or entertain applications affecting an all-India issue or having ramifications all over the country. Except that before the courts grant any injunction, they should have regard to the principles of comity of courts in a federal structure and have regard to self-restraint and circumspection, we do not at this stage lay down any more definite norms. We may also perhaps add that it
5
may be impossible to lay down hard and fast rules of general application because of the diverse situations which give rise to problems of this nature. Each case has its own special facts and complications and it will be a disadvantage, rather than an advantage, to attempt and apply any stereotyped formula to all cases. Perhaps in this sphere, the High Courts themselves might be able to introduce a certain amount of discipline having regard to the principles of comity of courts administering the same general laws applicable all over the country in respect of granting interim orders which will have repercussion or effect beyond the jurisdiction of the particular courts. Such an exercise will be useful contribution in evolving good conventions in the federal judicial system."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. It is evident from a simple reading of the above-extracted decision that no definite norms were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it was observed that the courts before granting injunction or entertaining applications affecting an all-India issue or having ramifications throughout the country, should have regard to the principles of comity of courts in a federal structure, as well as, self-restraint and circumspection. No further definite forms were laid down, since it was observed that each case has its own facts and circumstances and diverse situations can give rise to problems of this nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court left it to the High Courts to introduce a certain amount of discipline, having regard to the principles of
6
comity of courts administering the same general laws applicable all over the country, whilst granting interim orders which will have repercussion or effect beyond the jurisdiction of the particular courts.
10. A learned Single Judge of this Court in its order dated 31.05.2007, passed in CM No.7602/2007 in W.P. (C) No.4037/2007 titled as "CFA Institute and anr. v. All India Institute of Technical Education", referred to certain decisions of the United States Supreme Court relating to principles of comity of courts. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision in this behalf are reproduced hereinbelow:
"… In Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cal. 509 U.S. 764, it was observed that the comity of courts refers to a situation where judges decline to exercise jurisdiction over matters more appropriately adjudged elsewhere.
In Parsi v. Davidson 405 U.S. 34, it was observed that under accepted principles of comity, a court should stay its hand only if the relief the petitioner seeks would also be available to him with reasonable promptness and certainty through the alternative machinery…"
11. At the outset, it must be observed that arguments in the subject writ petition have been concluded and the judgment has been reserved by the learned Single Judge on 23.05.2017. The relief granted by the learned Single Judge is effective only till the date of pronouncement of the judgment in the subject writ petition.
7
12. The order sought herein before us by the appellant against the subject circulars is going to have ramifications across India.
13. Before us, the Appellant has not filed a copy of the subject writ petition. Even copies of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati, in relation to the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016, have not been placed on record; let alone a copy of the pleadings resulting in passing of those orders. Furthermore, copies of the order of the High Court of Allahabad in relation to the modified circular dated 17.01.2017, as well as, that of the pleadings resulting in passing thereof; have not been placed on record. Copy of the said judgment dated 20.11.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, as well as, that of the said order dated 31.07.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were handed over in Court and not filed on record.
14. In view of the direction sought before us, it is presumed that the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati have stayed the operation of the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016 within their respective territorial jurisdiction only, and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad of the said modified circular dated 17.01.2017 within its
8
jurisdiction; and that the operation of their orders does not extend to the entire country.
15. Further, as per the case of the appellant itself, the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati have not stayed the operation of the modified circular dated 17.01.2017, and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad of the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of the principles of comity of courts, we are of the considered view that, it would not be prudent for us to extend the application of the impugned order across India and restrain the FCI from making recoveries pursuant to the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016, as well as, modified circular dated 17.01.2017, since:
a) The nature and scope of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati or Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, leading to passing of said orders against the subject circulars, purportedly similar to the order impugned herein; have not been brought to our notice. Even the complete scope and reasoning of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta,
9
Gauhati and Allahabad against the subject circulars, is unknown to us.
b) Since a copy of the subject writ petition has not been filed on record along with the present appeal, the scope thereof is also not known, preventing us from fully appreciating the prayer sought herein.
c) The Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati, have restrained the FCI from making recoveries only in pursuance to said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016, and not the modified circular dated 17.01.2017. Conversely, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has restrained the FCI from making recoveries only in pursuance to modified circular dated 17.01.2017, and not the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016. If this High Court were to extend the stay against both the subject circulars across India, when the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Gauhati have not stayed the operation of the subsequent modified circular dated 17.01.2017, and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has not stayed the operation of the said earlier circular dated 17.08.2016; it would
10
be subsuming jurisdiction of the said High Courts, which may lead to conflicting orders on the same subject matter.
d) Even otherwise, in our view, discretion has not been exercised by the learned Single Judge arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or in ignorance with the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. Therefore, we do not think that we must interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute it with our own discretion. [Ref: Wander Ltd. and Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd., reported as 1990 (Supp) SCC 727]
17. It would also be relevant to note that comity albeit a tool for co- operation can also be a tool for exclusion. It is trite that forum non conveniens (Latin for "inconvenient forum" or "inappropriate forum") is a discretionary power of common law courts to refuse to hear a case that has been brought before it. The Courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties. [Ref: Max India Limited v. General Binding Corporation reported as 2009
(3) ArbLR 162 (Delhi)]
11
18. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and since the relief prayed for by the appellant would, in our view, be more appropriately adjudged elsewhere and, that too, with certainty, as well as, reasonable promptness, we shall exercise self-restraint in the instant case.
19. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly.
20. Pending application also stands disposed of.
21. No order as to costs.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
DEEPA SHARMA, J.
MARCH 22, 2018
ap/mk
12
Alert