IMPORTANT POINT
Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a Canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed services of a contractor, contract labour would indeed be employees of the principal employer.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-

Civil Appeal No. 5992 of 1997:

The above appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P.No.16722 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, in turn, came to be filed by a group of workers seeking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellant in not absorbing them as its regular employees and not paying the pay and other benefits on par with the regular employees of the appellant-company is illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the appellant-company: (a) to absorb the workers as its regular employees; (b) to prescribe the appropriate scale of pay and other service conditions for them from the date of their initial appointment together with arrears of salary. A Division Bench of the High Court by a common order dated 24.1.97 in this and two other writ petitions passed the following order:

"The above cases, it is stated, are covered by the judgment in writ appeal No. 385 of 1996 dated 27.11.96. Let the petitions accordingly be disposed of and directions issued."

Hence, this appeal.

Civil Appeal No.3159 of 1997:

2. The above appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P. No.10967 of 1988, who was the appellant in W.A.No.1493 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In the Writ Petition, the Canteen Employees Union of B.H.P.V., and a worker in the canteen, who was also the General Secretary of the Union at that time, prayed for an appropriate direction to declare the action of the appellant in not regularizing the services of the workers in the canteen and paying them wages on par with other permanent workers of the appellant and withdrawing B.H.P.V. dispensary facilities to them, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and direct the appellant to accord those reliefs. A learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by following an earlier decision of the same court dated 30.10.95 rendered in W.P.No.5682 of 1992: VST Industries Ltd. vs. VST Industries Workers Union & Another [1996 (1) A.L.D. 97]. A review filed thereon in W.M.P.No.19114 of 1996 having also been rejected on 1.10.1996, W.A. 1493 of 1996 came to be filed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court, adverted to the earlier decisions of the Division Bench rendered in W.A. Nos. 430 and 385 of 1996 and in the light of the principles laid down therein, not only confirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge but also held that in the teeth of Rules 65 to 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950, it requires to be affirmed that the appellant has a statutory duty to provide a canteen for the workmen and consequently dismissed the appeal, resulting in the filing of the above appeal

Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 1997:

3. The above appeal has been filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 8015 of 1992 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, in turn, came to be filed by the respondent canteen workers seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants herein (respondents before the High Court) to regularize their services from the date of appointment with all consequential benefits. By an order dated 27.11.1996, the Division Bench adverted to the decision rendered in Writ Appeal No. 385 of 1996 and allowed the claims by passing the following order:

"This writ petition has to succeed vide judgment in writ appeal No.385 of 1996 delivered by us today as facts are similar to the facts in the said case, except that the petitioners are the employees of the instrumentality of the Government of India i.e., Bharath Dynamic Limited. The instant petition is ordered on the same terms as in writ appeal No.385 of 1996."

Hence, this appeal.

Civil Appeal No.6532 of 1997:

4. The above appeal has been filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 in W.P.No.8113 of 1993 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, in turn, came to be filed by the canteen workers seeking for a declaration: (a) that the appointment of contractor for running the industrial cante