Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the appellants, relying on the following two decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) PARIMAL CHANDRA RAHA v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA (1995 Supp (2) SCC 611) and (ii) INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK V. I.O.B. STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS' UNION , referred to the relevant clauses in the agreement, namely, Clauses 1 to 6, 8 to 18 and 20 and Clause 20, according to him, is an important clause which reads as under:-

"20. In addition to the payment to the caterers against redeemed coupons of various denominations/printed requisitions slips/coupons as detailed above, the company shall pay to the caterers, in consideration of providing the comp any facilities the following mounts only, except otherwise provided for in this agreement.

15. The submission of Mr. V.Prakash, learned senior counsel for the ppellants is that the canteen run by the respondents 1 and 2 is statutory canteen, required to be run by the first respondent under Section 46 of the Factories Act and the appellants who are all employees in the canteen are workmen of the respondents 1 and 2 for all purposes. Learned senior counsel strongly relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in MISHRA DHATU NIGAM LTD. v. M.VENKATAIAH and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPN. LTD. v. KARRI POTHURAJU . He also relied upon the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. NATIONAL UNION WATERFRONT WORKERS (2001) 7 SCC 1). He referred to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in TAMIL MANILA THOZHILALAR SANGAM v. T.N.E.B. (1998 (3) LLN 421) and submitted that on the basis of the decision, the canteen has been maintained by the respondents 1 and 2 in discharge of statutory obligation and for that, the respondents 1 and 2 availed the services of contractors and hence, the labourers employed by the contractors are the employees of the principal employer. He therefore submitted that on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court, cited supra, the appellants are the employees of the respondents 1 and 2 and suitable directions may be issued for the regularisation of the services of the appellants as given by the Full Bench of this Court in Thozhilalar Sangam case. He also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Parimal Chandra Raha case and Indian Overseas Bank case in support of his submission that the appellants are employees of the statutory canteen run by the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 1 and 2 are the principal employers and hence, the appellants are direct employees of the respondents 1 and 2.

16. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Section 46 of the Factories Act requires that a canteen should be provided and maintained by the occupier for the use of the workers. He referred to Section 46 of the Factories Act and the Rules framed there under. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPN. LTD. v. SHRAMIK SENA and submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the employees of statutory canteen are workmen of the establishment for the purpose of Factories Act only and not for all purposes. Learned counsel submitted that in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Case, the Supreme Court referred to its decision in Parimal Chandra Raha case as well as M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India (1990 Supp SCC 191 and Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen and held that the workman of a statutory canteen would be a workman of the establishment for the purpose of Factories Act and not for all purposes. He submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in Tamil Manila Thozhilalar Sangam case (1998(3) LLN 421) was rendered on 5.5.1998 before the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Case which was rendered on 4.8.1999 and hence, the Full Bench decision of this Court may not be relevant for the purpose of this case. He submitted that the judgment in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Case, rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, is a binding decision on this Court. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in WORKMEN OF THE CANTEEN OF COATES OF INDIA LTD. v. COATES OF INDIA LTD. (2004) 3 SCC 547) in which the judgment was delivered on 28.8.1996 wherein the Supreme Court held that the provision in Factories Act requiring a canteen to be provided in the industrial establishment premises is not decisive to hold that the workmen employed in such a canteen are workmen of the establishment. He also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. M. ASLAM (2001) 1 SCC 720) and G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY v. STATE OF U.P. . Learned counsel strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in HARI SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. ARTIFICIAL LIMBS CORPORATION AND ORS. (2002 I LLJ 237) and submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the employees in a canteen set up in discharge of statutory mandate, namely, Section 46 of Factories Act, 1948 do not necessarily become employees of establishment and it would depend on how the obligation to set up the canteen was discharged by establishment, whether by direct recruitment or by employment of contractor. Learned counsel pointed out that Ms. Justice Ruma Pal was a party to the Constitution Bench which rendered the decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1 - hereinafter referred to as ' SAIL case') and if the Three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Case had been overruled by the judgment in SAIL case, the Supreme Court would not have followed the said decision in Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation case (2002-1-LLJ 237). Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in WORKMEN OF NILGIRIS CO-OP.MKTG. SOC. LTD. v. STATE OF T.N. (2004 II LLJ 253), particularly paragraph-74 of the judgment wherein the Supreme Court held that though the Supreme Court had reservation about the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. v. M.Venkataiah (2003 III LLJ 847), but it did not go into the said question inasmuch even therein it noticed that the decision in SAIL case stood on a different footing. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the appellants are the employees of the establishment run by the respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of Factories Act only and not for any other purpose.

20. In Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Case in the judgment delivered by a Three Judge Bench noticed Parimal Chandra Raha case (1995 Supp (2) SCC 611) and M.M.R.Khan v. Union of India (1990 Supp SCC 191) and held that workmen of a statutory canteen would be the workmen of the establishment for the purpose of the Factories Act only and not for all other purposes. The Supreme Court has also held that in Parimal Chandra Raha case the Supreme Court did not specifically hold that the deemed employment of the workers is for all purposes nor did it specifically hold that it is only for the purpose of the Factories Act, but however, a reading of the judgment in its entirety makes it clear that the deemed employment is only for the purpose of the Factories Act. The Supreme Court also held that if the argument that once an employee is found to be an employee under the Factories Act, he would become the employee of the management for all purposes is to be accepted, then the same would run counter to the law laid down by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in M.M.R. Khan case (1990 Supp SCC 191) and on this point, similar is the view of another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen and therefore, the workman of a statutory canteen would be the workmen of the establishment for the purpose of the Factories Act only and not for all other purposes. The Supreme Court then examined the question whether from the material on record it could be held that the workmen are, in fact, the employees of the management for all purposes, and on the basis of detailed affidavits and documents filed, it held that the canteen in the establishment of the management was not only a statutory canteen, but the workmen were the workmen of the management. We have also noticed the decisions of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. M.ASLAM (2001) 1 SCC 720) and G.B.PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY v. STATE OF U.P. and those cases are cases where the contract was held to be a sham. It is also relevant to refer to another decision of the Supreme Court which was decided on 28.8.1996 in WORKMEN OF THE CANTEEN OF COATES OF INDIA LTD. v. COATES OF INDIA LTD. (2004) 3 SCC 547) wherein the Supreme Court held that though the Factories Act requires a canteen to be provided in the industrial establishment premises, it is not decisive or sufficient to determine the status of the persons employed in the canteen and the effect of compliance with the provisions of the Factories Act is a different matter which does not arise for consideration to hold that the workmen employed in such a canteen are workmen of the establishment. The Supreme Court in VST INDUSTRIES LTD. v. VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS' UNION (2001) 1 SCC 298), after referring to the judgment in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Case, held that the workmen of a statutory canteen are workmen for the purpose of Factories Act and not for any other purpose and the Supreme Court then examined the question whether the workmen are employees o the management for all purposes and found that the management has complete control over the activities in respect of the canteen and the contractor has absolutely no discretion either in regard to the menu, quality and quantity of the food items much less the rate at which the same are supplied to the workmen. The Supreme Court held that when the management exercises such a complete control, the canteen should be deemed to be run by the management itself. In HARI SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. ARTIFICIAL LIMBS CORPORATION AND ORS. (2002 I LLJ 237) the Supreme Court held that it could not be said as an absolute proposition of law that whenever in discharge of a statutory mandate, such as Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, a canteen was set up by an establishment, the employees of the canteen became the employees of the establishment. The Supreme Court also held on the facts of the case that the employees of the canteen are not the employees of the Corporation, but they are the employees of the contractor. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court has taken the view after referring to the judgments in Parimal Chandra Raha case, Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Case and R.K. Panda v. Steel authority of India Ltd. . In WORKMEN OF NILGIRIES CO-OP. MKTG. SOC.LTD. v. STATE OF T.N. (2004-II-LLJ 253) the Supreme Court held as under:-