The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of employee status in relation to the obligation to provide canteen services under the Factories Act and the control and management of the canteen by the principal employer.

The Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st Respondent dated 17.04.2006 made in P.G.A. Nos. 79 to 87 of 2005 and 98 & 99 of 2005.

2. Writ petition in W.P.No.22924 of 2006 relates to 17 workmen who were employed in the Co-operative Canteen alleged to have been maintained by the Petitioner Sugar mills in accordance to the statutory compliance of section 46 of the Factories Act.

3. Canteen was originally started in the year 1971 by the Mill and was later converted as a Co-operative canteen during the year 1976-77. The actual control of the affairs of the canteen was said to be with the mill. Case of the Petitioner is that they were the employees of statutory canteen when the Petitioner Sugar Mills was laid off, all the workmen were asked to retire under the Voluntary retirement scheme and thus relieved from service. Consequentially the canteen was closed and all the workmen have been sent away without any monetary benefits. Grievance of the Petitioner is that closure compensation and Gratuity was not paid to them. Workmen moved independent applications for payment of Gratuity before the 2nd Respondent, which was taken on file as P.G.Nos.252 of 2003 to 266 of 2003 and P.G.Nos.132 and 135 of 2003.

4. Holding that claimants were not the employees of the sugar mill and only daily wages employees, the Assistant Commissioner had dismissed the application for payment of gratuity.

5. Aggrieved by the order, the workmen preferred an Appeal before the 1st Respondent, which was taken on file as P.G.A.Nos.73 – 87 of 2005 and 98 and 99 of 2005. The 1st Respondent has gone through the evidence adduced before the Trial Authority and on perusing all relevant records placed before him and the order of Controlling Authority has come to a definite finding that all these facts were true and the canteen was under control of the sugar Mill. Based on this finding the 1st Respondent has allowed the Appeal and reversed the order of the 2nd Respondent.

6. Challenging the impugned order the learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the canteen was an independent and a registered society and was managed and controlled by the Special Officer independently. The Controlling Authority / Assistant Labour Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim made by the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that when the Respondents have come forward with specific plea that they were employees coming under the control of Petitioner Management they ought to have proved their case that they have worked their for 240 days.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents placed reliance upon (2001) 1 SCC 298, VST Industries vs. VST Industries Workers Union. Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that Management was subsidizing the canteen and that Management had control over running of the canteen and therefore 1st Respondent has rightly allowed the appeal directing the Management to pay the gratuity.

8. Whether the 2nd Respondent workmen are the employers of the principal employer – Maduranthagam Co-op Sugar Mills is the main point falling for consideration. In AIR 1995 SC 1666 Parimal Chandra Raha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. Honble Supreme Court has evolved four principles to consider whether they were employees of different canteens in different offices of the Life Insurance Corporation whether were employees of the Corporation itself. The Court evolved four principles which are quoted as under:-

"i) Canteens maintained under obligatory provisions of the Factories Act for the use of the employees become a part of the establishment and the workers employed in such canteens are employees of the management.

(ii) Even if there is a non-statutory obligation to provide a canteen, the position is the same as in the case of statutory canteens. However, if there is a mere obligation to provide facilities to run a canteen, the canteen does not become part of the establishment.

(iii) The