Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Pakale, the learned Counsel for the Union would urge that while admitting the appeal, the Division Bench confined the hearing of the appeal only consider as to whether the absorption and the regularisation of the concerned workmen must be subjected to the conditions laid down in paragraphs 32, 34 and 35 of the decision in Parimal Chandra Raha and the order in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The learned Counsel for the Union would urge that the controversy as to whether the absorption and the regularisation of the concerned workmen was only for the purposes of the Factories Act and not for all purposes, has not been kept open for consideration by the order dated 16th July, 1997. He voluntarily submitted that at this distance of time, he would not like to enter into the legal debate whether the absorption/regularisation of the concerned workers could be subjected to the conditions laid down in paragraphs 32, 34 and 35 in the case of Parimal Chandra Raha and as ordered in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation; rather he accepts the conditions laid down in paragraphs 32,34 and 35 in Parimal Chandra Raha and also the directions given in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. General Employees Association and Ors. in Special Leave Petition No. 10125 of 1996. Mr. S. S. Pakale submitted that the order of absorption passed by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of (Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raman Lal Chiman Lal and Ors.) ; Parimal Chandra Raha (supra);(VST Industries Ltd. v. VST Industries Workers Union) 2001(1) S.C.C. 298; (Steel Authority of India v. National Union Water Front Workers) ; (National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Karri Pothuraju and Ors.) A.I.R 2003 S.C.W. 3976, and (Mishra Dhatu Nigarn v. M. Venkataiah) .

Based on the facts that had come on record and the aspects noticed in paragraph 22 of the report, the Supreme Court concluded that there was direct relationship of the employer and the employee between the 33 canteen workers and the bank and did not disturb the finding of the Division Bench.

14. The issue in the State Bank of India arose out of the demand of the workers employed in the canteens run by the local implementation committees, as workmen of the Bank and for giving them the same status, pay and facilities as available to other class-IV employees of the Bank. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions and after noticing the legal position summarised in Parimal Chandra Raha, it was held that in the case before them, there was no statutory or otherwise obligation of the employer to provide the canteen and, therefore, Parimal Chandra Raha was not applicable.

21. What is pertinent to be noticed from the survey of the afore-referred decisions is that no decision of the Supreme Court lays down as a principle of law that the workers engaged by the contractors in the establishment of the canteen which is statutorily required to be maintained by the undertaking under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 have a right of automatic absorption and regularisation in the service of the principal employer. This position was not even disputed by the learned Counsel for the Union. In M.M.R. Khan having held that the contract employees in the statutory canteens are railway servants, the Supreme Court went into the question whether the said employees were railway employees for all purposes and ultimately it was held that they were, purely on facts peculiar to them. One of the principles propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Parimal Chandra Raha was that the canteens maintained under the obligatory provisions of Factories Act for the use of the employees become a part of the establishment and the workers employed in such canteens are employees of the management. Then on facts, the Supreme Court in Parimal Chandra Raha held that the canteen had become the part of the establishment of the LIC; the canteen committees, the cooperative society of the employees and the contractors engaged from time to time are in reality the agencies of LIC and are, only a veil between the LIC and the workers. Parimal Chandra Raha came to be explained by the Supreme Court in the Indian 'Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. The Supreme Court noted that in Parimal Chandra Raha, it was not held that the deemed employment of the workers was for all purposes nor was it held that it is only for the purpose of Factories Act but read that judgment as holding that the deemed employment is only for the purpose of Factories Act. Having so held, the Supreme Court went into the facts. It was found that (i) the canteen was in existence since the inception of the factory; (ii) the workers were in employment for long years and continued in employment despite change of contractors; (iii) the wages of the canteen workers were being reimbursed by the management; (iv) the management had supervision and control through its authorised officer; (v) the contractor was nothing but an agent or manager of the Corporation and (vi) the workers having protection of continuous employment in the establishment. Considering these factors cumulatively and the fact that the canteen in the establishment of the management was statutory canteen, it was held that the workmen were, in fact, the workmen of the management. Before the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd., the provisions of CLRA Act come up for consideration and interpretation. ON thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and large number of decisions, the contract labours were classified in the three categories in paragraph 107. One of such categories classified by the Constitution Bench is where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of a contractor. In this regard, it was observed that the Courts have held that the contract labour would be the employees of the principal employer. One of the arguments, as noted in paragraph 61 of the judgment, before the Constitution Bench, was that on abolition of contract labour, if the worker was not absorbed, the remedy of the abolition of the contract labour would be worse than the mischief sought to be remedied. VST Industries, IPCL and few other cases were relied upon to show that direction for absorption was given by the Court. Dealing with this aspect, the Constitution Bench in paragraph 104 observed that these cases relate to statutory canteen and stand on different footing and no principle of law can be adduced therefrom that once the contract labour system is abolished under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of CRLA Act, the contract workers have to be absorbed as regular employees by the principal employer. Then in the two later decisions viz., National Thermal Power Corporation and Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., the Supreme Court held that where in discharge of a statutory obligation in maintaining the canteen in an establishment, the principal employer availed the services of the contractor, the contract labour would be the employees of the principal employer. Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union is the latest decision of the Supreme Court cited before us. The Supreme Court held that the factors which may persuade the court to take the view that the workers were employees of the management were missing in that case; there was no power in the management to make the appointment nor the management could take disciplinary action against the erring workers. The management was found to be not reimbursing the wages of the workers. The supervision and control of the management was also not found. The Supreme Court, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court negativing the claim of the workers. We do no better than reiterate what was said in the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society that no decision of the Supreme Court has laid down any hard and fast rule in determining the question whether the employees concerned are employees of the contractor or the principal employer. It is not possible as well; each case has to be answered having regard to the facts involved therein. Different tests have been applied in different cases having regard to the nature of the problem arising in the fact situation obtaining therein.

24. On the face of the order dated 16th July, 1997, the only question that remains for consideration is whether while directing absorption of the contract workers, the learned Single Judge ought to have put conditions as set out in paragraphs 32, 34 and 35 of the decision in Parimal Chandra Raha and as done in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. This is the only scope of hearing of this appeal. In other words, the legality and correctness of the order directing absorption of the workers was not kept open for consideration in this appeal. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Union) fairly conceded before us that the concerned workmen have no objection if the order of absorption granted by the learned Single Judge is moulded as per paragraphs 32, 34 and 35 of Parimal Chandra Raha and the order in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, As a matter of fact we are informed that the Corporation has absorbed and regularised the services of the concerned workers accordingly. In view of the concession of the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the grievance of the Corporation raised at the time of admission of the appeal that the learned Single Judge ought to have moulded the relief of absorption as per paragraphs 32, 34 and 35 in the decision of rarimal Chandra Raha and the order in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation pales into insignificance and does not survive for decision.