Sanjay Kumar, J. - M/s. Voltas Limited, Secunderabad, filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.12.2004 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Labour Court') in M.P.No.39 of 1999 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein along with four others. By the said order, the Labour Court held that respondents 1 and 2 were, in effect, employees of M/s. Voltas Limited, which could be termed as the principal employer running the co-operative canteen through its agent, M/s. Voltas Employees Co-operative Canteen, Secunderabad, and directed it to pay the claimed amounts of Rs.13,008/- and Rs.12,918/- respectively to them.

2. By order dated 17.02.2005, this Court granted interim suspension of the order passed by the Labour Court subject to deposit of the awarded amount within a time frame. The Labour Court was directed to keep the said amount in a fixed deposit till disposal of the writ petition or till further orders. This interim order was made absolute on 11.06.2008, when the vacate stay petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was dismissed.

3. The writ petition was dismissed for default against M/s. Voltas Employees Co-operative Canteen, the third respondent, as per the Court Order dated 30.12.2010, which was given effect to on 09.03.2011. However, a restoration petition was filed on behalf of the third respondent and as Sri S. Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner company, and Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 herein, stated that they had no objection to restoration of the writ petition as against the third respondent, the petition was ordered on 14.09.2015 without going into the merits of the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support thereof.

4. Heard Sri S. Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner company, Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri K. Srinivas Rao, party-in-person, representing the third respondent, in the purported capacity of its President.

5. In so far as the third respondent is concerned, the Labour Court recorded that it had become defunct and in that view of the matter, it would be inoperative to pass any order against it. Respondents 1 and 2 have accepted this order and they did not choose to assail this finding of the Labour Court. In that view of the matter, the third respondent has no redressable grievance before this Court which needs to be addressed.

6. The core issue that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Labour Court could have entertained the petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein along with others under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1947').

7. It is pertinent to note that the other four persons, who joined respondents 1 and 2 in filing the subject claim petition, got their case dismissed as withdrawn on 20.07.2001 on the ground that their dispute with the petitioner company was settled out of Court.

8. The claim of respondents 1 and 2 was that they were employed in the Voltas Employees Co-operative Canteen which was purportedly started at the behest of the petitioner company in the premises of its factory to cater to the needs of its employees. They further claimed that the petitioner company was their principal employer though the canteen was run by a co-operative society, M/s. Voltas Employees Co-operative Canteen, the third respondent. They stated that the petitioner company did not extend to them statutory benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1948') and The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1952') and aggrieved thereby, they submitted applications to the authorities concerned. The E.S.I. Court (Industrial Tribunal-I), Hyderabad, thereupon held in their favour in E.I.C.No.7 of 1997. Similarly, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad, held that