Canteen workers employed in a company which establishes and manages the canteen as provided under Section 46 of the Factories Act are employees of the company and entitled to regular pay on par with regular employees of the company.

MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the VST Industries Canteen Workers Union represented by its Secretary P. Navaneetham seeking a mandamus directing the first respondent to treat the members of the petitioner-union who are the employees of the Canteen, established under Section 46 of the Factories Act by the first respondent, as the employees of the first respondent-Company and seeks a consequential direction to tender all monetary and other benefits accrued and acquired by treating them as employees of the first respondent.

( 2 ) THE claim of the petitioner is that it is a union registered under Trade unions Act vide Regd. No. B. 1421 and by their resolution dated 19-4-1992 authorised the Secretary Sri P. Navaneetham to file the present writ petition seeking a direction to direct the respondents to treat the canteen workers and the members of the petitioners-union numbering 65 (the said list is described in annexure-I of the material papers) as the employees of the first respondent- company.

( 3 ) IT is stated that VST Company Limited, the first respondent herein, is a company engaged in the activity of manufacturing cigarettes since 1937 and is associated with ITC Limited. The respondent-Company employs nearly 2050 persons for the said activity of manufacturing cigarettes excluding the canteen staff. Section 46 of the Factories Act, a statutory requirement is to establish and maintain a canteen in the Factory premises for its employees. In fulfilment of the requirement contemplated under said Section 46 of the Factories Act, the First respondent has also established a canteen and is maintaining it within the factory premises. The first respondent had been managing the canteen upto the year 1982. After 1982, the first respondent-Company introduced the contract system for maintaining the canteen so established.

( 4 ) PRESENTLY, the canteen is run by the Blue Star Enterprises. It is stated that though the management of the canteen has been entrusted to the contractors from time to time, the personnel working in the canteen are retained by all these contractors and they have been paid the salaries through the Contractors. It is stated that the members of the petitioner-union have been continued though the management of the canteen is entrusted to private contractors. They have been tendered ESI benefits under the code number of VST and they have also been given EPF benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Act under code number of VST. It is further stated that the contractors have not issued any appointment orders to the members of the petitioner-union. The members of the petitioner-union have also been issued identity cards by the Welfare Officer of VST which is renewable from year to year.

( 5 ) IT is stated that the workmen employed by the first respondent for maintaining the canteen from1937 till 1982 are adjusted in various departments by the first respondent. The respondent has five other associate units. In those units also, canteen is established and maintained by regular staff and they are all given all benefits excepting the members of the petitioner-union working in vst Company Limited at Hyderabad. It is further stated that the salaries of the members of the petitioner-union are paid through the Contractor and the same is also counter-signed by the nominee of the principal employer as required under the Factories Act.

( 6 ) IT is further stated that the respondent-Company has provided building along with furniture, utensils, gas, electricity, water supply and other cutlery. The contractor is only instrumental in preparing the food and serving it to the employees. The rates of such items are also prescribed by the management. It is, in this background, stated that the contractor has no role to play and it is only the respondent-company which runs the canteen in fulfilment of the requirement contemplated under Section 46 of the Factories Act. It is, therefore, contended that the first responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document