ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment as the issue involved is to treat the petitioners in both the writ petitions as the regular employees of the respondent viz. , Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (for brevity VSP) and to pay the pay and allowance with effect from the date of filing of the writ petitions.

( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 14296 of 1992 was filed by the workers working in statutory canteens established and run by VSP through contractor and the Writ Petition No. 26581 of 1996 was filed by the workers working in non-statutory canteens established and run in the premises of VSP through contractor. Out of 37 petitioners in WP No. 14296 of 1992, 4 left the service and 2 expired and out of 83 petitioners in WP No. 26581 of 1996, 6 left the service and two petitioners expired.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in Writ Petition no. 14296 of 1992 submitted that the petitioners 14 to 21 are working in the canteen at Blast furnace, petitioners 15 to 20 are working in the canteen of RMHS, petitioners 21 to 26 are working in the canteen at Steel Melting Shop, petitioners 27 to 31 are working in the canteen at Training and Development and petitioners 32 to 37 are working in the canteen at Project office. According to the petitioners, there are about 17000 workers working in VSP and it is a Public Sector Undertaking under the control of Central Government and it is State under article 12 of the Constitution of India and that also comes within the definition of Factory, as per Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act and is also occupier of the factory, as defined under section 2 (n) of the Factories Act. Therefore, the first respondent is under an obligation to provide and maintain canteen as contemplated under the Factories Act. It is further submitted that the State Government has issued G. O. Ms. No. 11 dated February 12, 1990 Women welfare, Child Development and Labour department, prohibiting contract labour and directing the Principal Employer to absorb the persons working in the canteen. It is submitted that all the petitioners are working for considerable length of time and they are having 4 to 8 years of service. The petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in m. M. R. Khan and others v. Union of India, air 1990 SC 937 : 1990 Supp SCC 287 : 1995-III-LLJ (Suppl)-166 to demonstrate that the workers working in the canteen established under the statutory obligation should be treated as the employees of the Principal Employer. Following the above said judgment, it is submitted that this Court in W. P. No. 12806 of 1988 and Batch, directed the occupier of the factory to treat the workers working in the canteen as its own regular employees and give all the consequential reliefs including increments, arrears of pay and allowance, etc. It is further submitted that as per Section 46 of the Factories Act, obligation rests on the first respondent to provide and maintain canteens. Accordingly, it is maintaining the canteens. Therefore, the workers working in the canteens established by the first respondent have to be treated as regular employees of the first respondent. Therefore, they are entitled to the benefit on par with regular employees as per the provisions of the Factories Act and the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court.

( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 26581 of 1996, there are as many as 83 petitioners. According to them, they are working in non-statutory canteens run in the premises of VSP. It is also mentioned that there are 18000 employees working in VSP situated over an extent of 9000 acres and there are 500 to 2000 workers working in each section of the project. It is further stated that they were paid very low wages comparatively with the workers working in VSP by the contractors of the canteens. Therefore, the petitioners herein sought the same relief to treat them as the employees of the respondent project and extend the benefits for which they are entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document