IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the principles of employer-employee relationship in the context of canteen workers' status.

JUDGMENT :

I.P. MUKERJI, J.

GENERAL FACTS

The status of six persons is in question in this appeal. Initially there were nine persons. Three of them are dead. Nine of them were:-

1) Sri Ashis Ganguly; 2) Sri Prafulla Misra; 3) Sri Prabhakar Hazra; 4) Sri Panchu Mondal; 5) Sri Biswanath Maity; 6) Sri Rajen Bera; 7) Sri Dipak Khara; 8) Sri Bablu Bag; 9) Sri Subhas Maity.

2. They claimed to be workmen of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the appellant and working in its canteen in the Paharpur LPG plant. According to the appellant, they were not. They were all partners of M/s Ten Friends Caterers (the Caterer), who are doing business in the plant under permission from the appellant. As partners, they share the profit and loss of the partnership business.

3. By an order dated 30th June, 1998 under Section 10(1)(d) and 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government referred the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. H.P.C.L., Paharpur for regularizing the services of canteen employees at Budge Budge and not regularizing the services of the workmen working in the canteen under M/s. Ten Friends Caterers at Paharpur LPG is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?”

4. The presiding officer of the tribunal was a retired High Court judge. On 9th March, 2007 the tribunal held that from 30th June, 1998 these nine persons should be considered to be regular employees of the appellant, be regularized in service and be paid the arrears of salary and other monetary benefits after adjusting the salary and monetary benefit that they may have already received.....subject to the condition that they fulfil the criteria of minimum and maximum age limit and also were medically fit as per regulation of the HPCL. The action of the management in not regularizing their service was found to be unjustified.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ application in this court on or about 11th October, 2007. By the judgment and order dated 27th September, 2019 it was dismissed by a learned single judge of this court.

6. The learned judge came to the following findings:-

“24. In this case, the Tribunal considered the clauses in the agreement while ascertaining whether the canteen was an integral part of the establishment. On the facts and materials before it, the learned Tribunal pierced the veil and considered the agreements with the caterer in their entirety. Some of the clauses of the agreements which were specifically considered by the Tribunal to arrive at the decision are as follows……

25. Considering the above clauses, it appears that the canteen services had been provided to the employees of the corporation for a long time. Food coupons were distributed amongst the workers to eat in the said canteen. The corporation had taken active interest in the day to day functioning of the canteen. The same caterer was awarded the contract over and over again for a long period of time and the nine (9) persons continued to work in the said canteen even between the renewals of the contract or award of fresh contract. The corporation also fixed the price, provided all utensils, furniture, electricity, gas, water, cutlery, crockery. The supervision of the canteen workers was also done by the corporation and at some point of time the provident fund deposits were also made by the corporation. On the appraisals of these facts the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the contract was just a mechanism employed by the corporation and the nine (9) persons were actually the employees of the Corporation itself. In my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error of law in relying upon the decision of Parimal Chandra Raha (supra).

27. This court cannot undertake the exercise of re-assessing the evidence and drawing conclusions on the questions of fact, being fully aware that this Court is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the award passed by the Tribunal,