IMPORTANT POINT
Employees of Cafeteria of G.B. Pant Agricultural University are employees of University and entitled to get regularised their service.

Headnote:Labour Law-University Cafeteria employee-Claim to be regularised as employees of University-Residential University-Students not allowed to take food outside-More than 175 employees working in Cafeteria-University having over all control and supervision over Cafeteria employees-Regulation framed under University Act unmistakably depict twin conventional test of implicit obligation and factors of over all control and supervision stand satisfied-Employees of Cafeteria are employees of University-University directed to regularise service of Cafeteria employees.
       Held : A perusal of the Regulations as framed under the statute (U.P. Agricultural University Act) unmistakably depict that the twin conventional tests of implicit obligation and factors of over all control and supervision by the University stands satisfied and the legal responsibility cannot be shifted to the students as is sought to be contended. (Para 7)
       As noticed above, a residential University having a canteen facility and the inmates of the hostel not being permitted to have food from outside cannot possibly be said to be a mere welfare service to the students. It is a requirement of the Regulations framed under the Act and thus having statutory sanction and force - the issue thus comes up for consideration as to whether it is a mere ancillary benefit conferred on to the inmates of the hostel or an essential requirement. The Regulations pertaining to the hostel accommodation and the supplies of food do not warrant any other conclusion than to treat it as an essential requirement so far as the inmates of the hostel are concerned. The involvement of the Vice-Chancellor, the Warden and the Food Managers who admittedly all belong to the University as employees thereof cannot negate the cry of the labour force asking for a parity in their scale of pay. Regularisation will undoubtedly bring forth a parity with the other employees of the University. The requirement of the number of employees also cannot be brushed aside. More than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food to the inmates of the hostels - there are altogether 14 hostels and the inmates have to depend on to the Cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, as a matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria-it is a requirement of the Regulation. (Para 9)
       Admittedly, Cafeteria employees need succour for livelihood - would they continue to remain half fed and half clad as long as they live - is this is the society that we feel proud of : Is this the guarantee provided by the founding fathers of our Constitution or is this the concept of socialism which they conceived? None of the answers can possibly be in the affirmative. The situation is rather awesome and deplorable - the University by compulsion directs students to be residents of hostel with a definite ban on having food from outside agencies excepting under special circumstances and the provider of food, namely the staff of the Cafeteria ought not to be treated as an employee of the University - whose employees they are if we may ask and we think it would not be impertinent on our part to ask the same - is it the consumer of food? Since when the consumer of food becomes the employer? These are the questions which remain unanswered : The society shall have to thrive : The society shall have to prosper and this prosperity can only come in the event of there being a wider vision for total social good and benefit : It is not bestowing any favour to anybody but it is a mandatory obligation to see that the society thrives. The deprivation of the weaker section we had for long but time has now come to cry halt and it is for the law courts to rise up to the occasion and grant relief to a seeker of a just cause and just grievance. Economic justice is not a mere legal jargon but in the new millenium, it is the obligation for all to confer this economic justice to a seeker : Society is to remain, social justice is the order and economic justice is the rule of the day. Narrow pedantic approach to statutory documents no longer survives. The principle of corporate jurisprudence is now being imbibed on to industrial jurisprudence and there is a long catena of cases in regard thereto - the law thus is not in a state of fluidity since the situation is more or less settled. As regards interpretation widest possible amplitude shall have to be offered in the matter of interpretation of statutory documents under industrial jurisprudence. The draconian concept is no longer available. Justice - social and economic, as noticed above ought to be made available with utmost expedition so that the socialistic pattern of the society as dreamt of by the founding fathers can thrive and have its foundation so that the future generation do not live in the dark and cry for social and economic justice. (Para 10)
       The University is directed to regularise the services of the employees in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court by 31st August, 2000 so as to entitle the employees of the Cafeteria to obtain the monthly wages at par with the other employees of the University, as directed by the labour court. The arrears of salary, if there be any payable, as per the said directions, as confirmed by the High Court, be paid to the canteen staff concerned by 12 equal monthly instalments alongwith the regularised salary. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Redressal of grievances of the Cafeteria workers in Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Nainital by reason of an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, Uttar Pradesh and subsequent confirmation thereof by the High Court prompted the University to move this Court in Appeal against the same.

2. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and technology established under U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958 happens to be a residential University having about 14 hotels to provide accommodation to the students and a Cafeteria to provide food services to the residents of the hostels and others. There are about 170 employees working in these Cafeterias and these are the employees who claim regularisation of the services as regular employees of the University which, however, stands negated by the University authority. The records depict that by reason of refusal to accept such a claim, the disputes were referred under two separate References in terms of Section 4(k) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act in November 1991 which were registered as Reference No. 141 of 1991 and 142 of 1991. The Labour Court upon acceptance of the claim of the employees in no uncertain terms found the entitlement of the employees of Cafeteria and declared the latter to be the regular employees of the University from the date of the award and held entitled to receive the same salary and other benefits as the other regular employees of the University. The University however, being aggrieved by the award moved two Writ Petitions by way of challenges to the two awards under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court also on a detailed scrutiny of the Regulations and other materials on record dismissed the Writ Petitions with an observation that the impugned award of the Labour Court are perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not suffer from any error of law. It is this order which is under challenge in this Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 13087 of 1996 and 13089 of 1996 (G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Nainital v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.).

3. There cannot possibly be any doubt that socialistic concept of the society as laid down in Part III and IV of the Constitution ought to be implemented in the true spirit of the Constitution. Decisions are there of this Court galore wherein this Court on more occasions than one stated that democratic socialism aims to end poverty, ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunity. In D.S. Nakara s case1 as also lately in Secretary, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh & Ors. etc. etc.2, the same has been well pronounced and we need not dilate on that score any further.

4. Mr. Trivedi, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing in support of the Appeals rather strongly contended that the High Court has totally misconstrued the Regulations framed under the Statute pertaining to the Hostel and Cafeteria (Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations under U.P. Agriculture University Act, 1958) and rather after a longish narration of the Regulations contended that it is not the University which has any control over the employees of the Cafeteria but the Food Committee which has specific role in the matter of management and control of the cafeteria and since there exists no evidence whatsoever on record that the employees working in the cafeteria were appointed by the University in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or the statute framed thereunder, question of there being any master - servant relationship would not arise. It is in this context also it has been contended by Mr. Additional Solicitor that there is no budgetary allocation provided in the University Budget to meet the expenses on account of the salaries of the Cafeteria employees and as such, question of the Cafeteria employees being termed to be employees of the University would not arise. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1314

IMPORTANT POINTEmployees of Cafeteria of G.B. Pant Agricultural University are employees of University and entitled to get regularised their service.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Employees of Cafeteria of G.B. Pant Agricultural University are employees of University and entitled to get regularised their service.