The statutory obligation to provide a canteen under the Factories Act is not decisive in determining the employment status of canteen staff. Employment status depends on factual evidence regarding appointment, payment of wages, and control, which in this case indicated the workers were employees of the contractor.

( 1 ) THE appellants are workmen employed in a canteen which is run in the premises of the respondent Company. The dispute involved is about their status. The workmens claim is that they are employees of the respondent company which is denied by the respondent. According to the respondent, these workmen are the employees of the contractor who is running the canteen in the premises of the respondent. The dispute was referred to the industrial Tribunal which held in favour of the workmen. The writ petition was then filed by the respondent Company in the Calcutta High Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge is as under:

"there is a canteen situated within the factory premises of the company and it started functioning since 21-10-1970 in pursuance of the agreement of the year 1969. The furniture kept in the canteen hall as also the utensils used for the canteen have been provided by the Company. There is a Managing Committee called the Canteen Managing committee for the purpose of supervision and control over the affairs of the canteen. The Canteen Managing Committee consists of six members three as the Companys representatives and three as workmens representatives. The Committee is headed by its Chairman who happens to be the Works Manager of the Company. Every year or at an interval of two or three years agreements are entered into between the Coats of India ltd. Canteen Managing Committee on the one hand and the respective caterers on the other. At the relevant time the Canteen Managing committee used to pay to the contractor Rs 2. 95 per meal out of which rs 0. 40 was paid by the staff and the balance was subsidised by the company. The employees get coupons in advance and the amount is adjusted with the salary for the following month according to the list furnished by the Committee to the Company. The caterer is responsible for the supply of meals, snacks and tea to the factory employees. Whatever money is spent by the Company for canteen, is entered into the books of account of the Company. After the contractor submits his bills, the Managing Committee forwards the same to the Company with its recommendation and the Company pays the bills to the Committee for payment to the contractor. The strength of the canteen staff varies between 11 and 15. The Tribunal also found that the canteen employees were not directly appointed by the Company nor had they ever moved the company for leave or other benefits enjoyed by the regular and direct employees of the Company. The Tribunal also found that the canteen employees got their wages from the respective contractors after signing the registers and they sign the attendance-cum-pay register maintained by the caterers. "

( 2 ) ON an appeal by the respondent Company to the Division Bench, the appeal has been allowed taking the view that the workmen are not the employees of the respondent Company. Hence this appeal by special leave by the workmen.

( 3 ) IT is clear from the finding of fact which obviously is based primarily on undisputed facts that all the relevant factors indicate that the workmen were employed only by the contractor who is running the canteen, and they were not employees of the respondent Company. The ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in favour of the workmen was clearly inconsistent with this finding. That obviously is the reason for the Division bench setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the respondent Company has the statutory obligation to provide a canteen in the premises and therefore, the employees of the canteen must be presumed to be the workmen employed by the respondent Company and no one else. Learned counsel referred to certain decisions for this purpose. It is sufficient for us to state that some requirement under the Factories Act of providing a canteen in the industrial esta