1. Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The dispute referred for adjudication was whether the demand for regularisation of the employees of the H.M.T. canteen as regular employees of H.M.T. Ltd. is justified.

2. The H.M.T. canteen is run by a Co-operative Society formed in the year 1985. It is alleged that the employees of the canteen that the Society is under the control of the H.M.T.Ltd, the Management. The employees of the canteen were workers in employment of the canteen even prior to the formation of the Society. After formation of the Society the Managing Committee of the Society is managed by H.M.T Ltd. The Managing Committee consists of four persons to be elected from general body and four persons from officers of the Management. Hence according to them, the employees of the canteen cannot be treated as employees of the Society but they are in effect employees of H.M.T Ltd. (Management).

3. The Management contended that the Society being a juristic person having its own bye-laws and rules, cannot be said to be owned or controlled by the management. The Society was formed in 1985 at the instance of workers of the canteen and they are members of the Society and the Society is the employer of all the workers. Accordingly, for the reason that certain officers of the company are among the managing committee of the Society, it does not take away the juristic character of the Society nor would it indicate that the Society is under the control of the company.

4. Before the Tribunal, the Management relied upon the oral evidence of MW1 and MW2 and marked Exts.M1 to M16. On behalf of the workmen two witnesses were examined as WW1 and WW2 and they relied upon Exts.W1 and W19.

5. The Tribunal, after an elaborate consideration of the facts and circumstances of the matter and on a consideration of the evidence on record had come to a finding that the canteen is administratively and financially controlled by the Company and therefore the canteen workers are in fact, the workmen of the Management Company and consequently an award has been passed declaring that the employees of the Society are under the control of the Management and entitled for regularisation in the service of the Management.

6. The Management impugns Ext.P1 award. They mainly contend that the Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 is a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal and having the power to hold properties, enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for purpose for which it was constituted. Since the Society is governed by the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the bye-laws, the members of the Society and the Society have different legal status and their rights are governed in terms with the applicable provisions. The said Society having taken the license under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and having entered into a genuine contract with HMT Ltd. it was wrong on the part of the Tribunal to have treated the said agreement as sham and the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Gujarat v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. (1995 (II) LL.J 790),

7. Whereas the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting Ext.P1 order. They also produced Ext.R5(a) to R5(e) in order to emphasize the point that the employees of the canteen are under the disciplinary control of the management of the company. The petitioner has also produced additional documents along with I.A.No. 13515/2010 as Exts. P2 to P3(c).

8. The learned Senior counsel Sri.Pathrose Mathai appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that under S.46 of the Factories Act, there is a statutory obligation on the part of the Company to provide a canteen and such canteen can also be formed by the w