V. SURI APPA RAO, J

1. Appellant -J.K. Tyres Limited filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the correctness of the order dated 14th July 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.3285/2001, thereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the award dated 12th July 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mysore in Reference No.116/1987.

2. The relevant facts leading for filing of this appeal are as follows :

Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and had employed more than 2000 employees at its factory at Mysore.During the period from 10.06.1984 to 09.07.1986 the appellant had entrusted running of the factory canteen to a Contractor by name Sri. Somayaji G., who was running the canteen through workmen engaged by him. The appellant had secured necessary Registration Certificate for engaging Sri. Somayaji under the Contract Labour Act and the said G. Somayaji had necessary licence issued by the competent authority under the Contract Labour Act to run the canteen. Unfortunately, on 03.09.1986, the canteen contractor Sri. G. Somayaji and his brother who was looking after the canteen were murdered outside the factory gate. The workmen engaged by the Contractor were arrested and criminal case was filed against them. After the death of Canteen Contractor Sri. G. Somayaji, the appellant entrusted the contract to another party. Therefore, the workmen of late G. Somayaji were not allowed into the factory premises as there was no employer-employee relationship between them. Thereafter, the respondent -Union raised a dispute for the illegal termination of their services and sought for reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. The conciliation is failed. Therefore, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Mysore. After considering the evidence of both the parties, the Labour Court, Mysore passed the award dated 12th July 2000 directing the appellant to reinstate 59 workmen of the canteen contractor into services with 50% back wages from 15.07.1988 till date of the award.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No.3285/2001 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the affairs of the Canteen was governed by the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 cannot be termed as Employees or the Principal Employer and employees of the appellant-Company. It is further contended that the Contractor has no control over the management, administration and functioning of the canteen.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent -Union contended that the canteen is a part of establish met of the management and that the workers in the canteen represents the company as the employees of the appellant's Company. Therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement.

6. Considering the rival contentions of both parties, the learned Single Judge observed that the workmen of the canteen are the employees of statutory canteen. Therefore, they are the employees of the management and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant -Company by following the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., and others Versus National Union Water Front Workers and others (2001-II-LLJ 1087)

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the employees of non-statutory canteen governed by the provisions of the Factories Act and that they cannot be termed as employees or the principal employer. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant -employer has relied upon the following judgments:

a) Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union and another Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and others (2005-II-LLJ684);

b) Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. And another Versus Shramik