Judgment

GROVER, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Industrial Court, Gujarat which reversed an order made by the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmedabad.

2. Ramanlal Chamanlal and others are the workers of a canteen which is run by the Saraspur Mills Canteen Co-operative Society Limited, Ahmedabad (hereinafter called the co-operative society). The appellant company is responsible for maintaining the canteen under the provision of Section 46 of the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder. The workers mentioned above filed an application before the 2nd Labour Court at Ahmedabad under Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act), complaining that the appellant was not paying them the wages and dearness allowances as per the directions contained in the Award of the Bombay Industrial Court made in 2298 Reference No. 18 of 1947 and supplementary Award given in certain miscellaneous applications of 1956 and 1962 respectively relating to additional wages sanctioned by the said Award . It was alleged by the applicants in support of their claim that by virtue of certain amendments made in the Act in the definition of the word "employer" they become workers of the appellant, which was bound to pay wages and dearness allowances settled by the aforesaid award and the supplementary award referred to. The case of the workmen was that the appellant was running the canteen only because it was under an obligation to do so under the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder. Thus the running of the canteen was an ordinary part of the undertaking of the appellant. It was admitted that the appellant did not run the canteen itself but handed over the premises to the co-operative society to run the canteen for the use and welfare of the Mill s employees and discharge its legal obligation.

3. The appellant denied the allegations of the workmen that they were its employees. It was claimed that the aforesaid workers had never been employed either by the appellant or by its agent or contractor. The workers in fact were stated to have been employed by the licences of the appellant and, therefore, there was no question of the wage settlements or Awards being binding on the appellant. The 2nd Labour Court by its Order dated 14th April, 1966 dismissed the claim of the workmen, who filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, which was allowed by its order dated 26th March, 1968. The Industrial Court held that the employees of the co-operative society, who were working in the canteen, were employees of the appellant and, their wages and dearness allowance etc. were payable in accordance with the Awards mentioned before. The direction was made that the appellant should pay the difference in wages and dearness allowance in accordance with those Awards.

4. The only question which requires determination is whether the canteen workers employed by the canteen workers employed by the co-operative society could be treated as employees of the appellant within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Act for the purpose of the appellant within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Act for the purpose of payment of their wages in spite of the fact that they are employees co-operative society. And were being paid wages by that society. Prior to the Act, Bombay Industrial Disputes Act 1938 was in force in the erstwhile Province of Bombay. Under that Act no statutory employees were created but only those persons who were directly employed by the employer were treated as employees. The Act repealed the 1938 Act. Section 3 (13) of the Act contained the definition of the term "employee". Before its amendment this provision was as follows:

(13) ........and includes:

(a) a person employed by a contractor to do any work for him in the execution of a contract with an employer within the meaning of sub- clause (e) of clause 14......."Sub-clause (e) of clause l4 is as follows :

(14) "employer" includes..........

(e)