Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The question whether employees of/in departmental canteens are employees of the department/establishment or not has been the subject matter of several judgments of the Apex Court. Mention may be made of the following and of which several have been cited by the counsel for the parties also -

i. The Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ramanlal Chimanlal (1974) 3 SCC 66.

 ii.        M.M.R. Khan (supra).

         iii. Parimal Chandra Raha v. Life Insurance Corporation of
                    India 1995 Supp (2) SCC 611.

         iv.        The Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Their
                    Workmen (1996) 3 SCC 267

         v.         Secretary HSEB Vs. Suresh (1999) 3 SCC 601.

         vi.        Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Vs. Shramik Sena
                    (1999) 6 SCC 439.

12. In Parimal Chandra Raha (supra) a distinction was carved out between an obligation to run a canteen and an obligation to provide facilities to run a canteen. A canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation was held to not become part of the establishment. On the facts of that case, the employer LIC in that case was found to have undertaken the obligation to run the canteen as distinct from an obligation merely to provide the facilities to run a canteen. It was also found that though the contractor engaged had been changed from time to time but the workers had remained the same. It was in these facts that it was held that the canteen had become a part of the establishment of LIC and the workers of the canteen, who at the instance of LIC had continued inspite of change in contractor, were held to have become employees of LIC. The contractors also were not found to be independent contractors but merely those engaged to work at the direction of LIC. The contractors in that case were engaged not for their expertise in the field of providing food stuffs and snacks but as mere agents of LIC.