1. Canteen workers — Co-operative society employment — Claim for regular employee status and benefits — Administrative control. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 428
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Chennai Port Trust – Appellant(s)
Versus
The Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association & Others – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 2010
Decided On : 27-04-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When a case is identical on facts to an earlier decision, same relief should be granted in the subsequent case.
When a case is identical on facts to an earlier decision, same relief should be granted in the subsequent case.
Subject
Employment Law - Employee Benefits
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service law – Employer employee relationship – Canteen functioning since inception of Port Trust – Respondent association managing affairs of canteen since long – Premises, furniture, fixture, fuel, electricity, utensils etc. being provided for by the appellant-Port Trust – Wages of canteen workers being reimbursed by appellant Trust exercising control and supervision – Contractor only an agent or manager of appellant Trust – Present case squarely covered by (1999) 6 SCC 439 – Held, High Court rightly granted similar relief. (Para 15, 18)
(1999) 6 SCC 439 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The Association-respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the High Court at Madras against the appellant herein (Chennai Port Trust) espousing the cause of their members (employees working in the Canteen) and sought a writ of mandamus against the appellant - Chennai Port Trust (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) directing the appellant to treat the employees working in the Canteen to be the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust and accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at par with the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust.
The Writ Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Association (respondent No.1 herein) and accordingly issued a writ of mandamus against the appellant (Chennai Port Trust), as prayed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly granted the relief.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Entitlement to regular employee benefits — Denial of control — Maintainability of writ petition versus Industrial Tribunal adjudication. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Comprehensive administrative and financial control — Comparison with established precedent — Undisputed factual matrix. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
4. Employer-employee relationship — Canteen workers — Ultimate administrative, financial, and operational control by main establishment. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court order affirmed — Writ of mandamus upheld. (Para 11 , 12 , 19 , 24 )
6. When are canteen workers considered employees of the main establishment?
Canteen workers are deemed employees of the main management when the establishment exercises ultimate administrative and financial control, provides premises and utilities free of charge, reimburses staff costs, and controls policy matters. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. Can a writ petition be maintained for determining employment status if the facts are undisputed?
Yes. While employment status is typically a question of fact for Industrial Tribunals, a writ court can grant relief if the findings are based on undisputed facts and documents requiring no trial. (Para 14 , 21 )
8. Does the existence of a separate co-operative society running a canteen preclude the main employer from being the actual employer?
No. If the main employer controls the society's rules, appoints the chairman, audits accounts, and provides essential infrastructure and funding, the employer-employee relationship is established regardless of the society's existence. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.02.2006 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.66 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.6872 of 2001 by which the Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.
2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow to appreciate the question involved in the appeal.
3. The appellant is “Chennai Port Trust” at Chennai. It has been in existence for the last many decades and has a large administrative and technical set up to run their multifarious activities on the Port.
4. Large numbers of workers/employees are employed by the Port Trust who work round the clock in shifts to run and maintain the activities of the Port Trust. These Port Trust workers/employees are provided with the facility of canteen. A Co-Operative Society called “Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Co-operative Canteen Limited” runs the Canteen. It has been running since 1964. This canteen has employed a large number of employees to run the canteen. The employees working in the canteen have formed an Association known as “Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association” (for short called “Association”)-respondent No.1 herein.
5. The Association-respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the High Court at Madras against the appellant herein (Chennai Port Trust) espousing the cause of their members (employees working in the Canteen) and sought a writ of mandamus against the appellant - Chennai Port Trust (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) directing the appellant to treat the employees working in the Canteen to be the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust and accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at par with the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust.
6. According to the writ petitioner (employees concerned), they have been working in the Canteen for decades and regularly catering and fulfilling the needs of the employees of the Port Trust. According to the Association, the members of the Association - employees working in the canteen are entitled to claim the same benefit and perks which are being given to the regular permanent employees of the Chennai Port Trust. The Association also pointed out the similar instances of other government organizations wherein the benefits of this nature were given to the employees working in the organizations alike the members of the Association in question.
7. The Chennai Port Trust mainly opposed the writ petition on two issues. First, the Chennai Port Trust has no control whatsoever over any of the activities of the Canteen in question including any control over its employees and second, the question as to whether the canteen employees are to be treated as employees of the Chennai Port Trust or not is a question of fact and, therefore, the writ petition is not the effective remedy to decide this question. According to the Chennai Port Trust, such issues should be raised before the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.
8. The Writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petition filed by the Association(respondent No.1 herein) and accordingly issued a writ of mandamus against the appellant (Chennai Port Trust), as prayed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition. In other words, the writ Court granted the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.
9. The appellant (Chennai Port Trust) felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench in the High Court. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the Chennai Port Trust.
10.
