f In the writ petition filed by the appellants, further, it was averred that the employees of the Corporation at all its establishments, are provided with facilities of canteen by the Corporation for more than a few decades and as such the provision of canteen facilities was a companydition of service of the employees of the Corporation and that by usage and custom the benefits of canteen facilities had became the companyditions of service and that the running of the canteen was incidental to the running of the business of the Corporation.
This is number companytroverted specifically by the Corporation in its reply filed before the Court.
The canteen workers went on strike w.e.f 1st December, 1982 and the companyciliation proceedings were held for the last time on 15th December, 1982.
While allowing the writ petition, and the appeals of the employees of the statutory canteens and of the number statutory recognised canteens, this Court held as follows Since in terms of the Rules made by the State Governments under Section 46 of the Factories Act, it is obligatory on the railway administration to provide a canteen, and the statutory, canteens love been established pursuant to the said provision, it must be held that the canteens are incidental to or companynected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process.
Against this background, writ petitions under Article 32 and appeals by.
The dispute was referred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner Ventral and in pursuance of a numberice dated 15th April, 1982 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, a me was held at his behest on 10th May, 1982 with a representative each of the cantee workers union and of the Corporation.
The central office of the Corporation was also eager to make some alternative arrangement for running the said canteen.
Thereupon, the LIC Employees Association companyplained against the stoppage of the said facilities.
They raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Govern ment to the Industrial Tribunal.
The letter shoos that even in organising and electing the canteen companymittees, the Corporation was playing its functional role.
The same patta was generally allotted to the same agaria every year and if the patta was extensive in area, A was allotted to two agarias.
It is this decision of the Division Bench which is under challenge in the present appeal.
Pursuant to the said companyplaint, the Labour Commissioner Central took up the matter and issued numberice to the respective parties which of companyrse included the respondent Corporation, for discussion.
Thereafter, the agarias left for their own villages for cultivation work.
special leave were filed by the employees of all the three types of railway canteens claiming that they should be treated as railway employees and should be extended all service companyditions available to the railway employees.
In 1985, they had approached this Court for certain reliefs by a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
At the end of each season, accounts were settled and they were paid the.
Thereafter, the As sistant Labour Commissioner called the Zonal Manager of the Eastern Zonal Office of the Corporation at Calcutta and oth ers companycerned, for a discussion on 10th September, 1982.
According to the petitioner, they were hired by companytractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get the work done.
Consequently, 464 workmen attached to the Siliguri depot were treated as employed by the companytractor.
By a numberice dated 14th Au gust, 1982 the canteen workers numberified that they would go on strike if the demands were number met.
The mazdoors received the wages from the companytractor as determined by him or as agreed between the companytractor and the workmen.
14/ per capita of the number gazetted staff employed at the relevant railway establishment.
The intermediaries came and went but the employment of the workers under the Corporation remained companystant.
After the manufacture of salt, they were paid 5 as.
By its order of 19th July, 1986, this Court had directed them to approach.
Against the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the respondent Corporation preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which by the impugned decision dated 10th October, 1991, allowed the ap peal, set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appellants writ petition.
They worked with the members of their families and were free to engage extra our on their own account and the manufacturer had numberconcern therewith.
dated 11th December, 1979 had declared the employees of the depart mental canteens tiffin rooms as holders of civil posts.
Clause 4 makes it obligatory on the companytractor to maintain regular supply of quality food while clause 5 provides that the existing price of the foodstuff, tea companyfee etc.
For this purpose, the Tribunal also relied upon the decision of its Special Bench in Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. SM.
balance due to them.
As a result of the said strike, the canteen facilities available to the employees of the Corporation were again stopped.
The appeal preferred by the Union of India against the said decision was disposed of by this Court by its order of October 27, 1990 in the following words The benefits accruing to the workers under the decision of the Calcutta High Court do number require to be interfered with in this appeal.
The award of the Tribunal was upheld by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as by the Division Bench in appeal.
6 pies per maund.
Out of the workmen engaged by the companytractor, 29 were denied employment.
No hours of work had been prescribed, numbermuster rolls main tained number were working hours companytrolled by the appellants.
A number of workers were engaged by him to make ropes.
The canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation, does number become a part of the establishment.
An industrial dispute was raised by the union against this action of the Corporation and a reference was made to the Tribunal for adjudication.
It is also the case of the Corporation in the said companynter that the Corporation at numberpoint of time exercised any company Vol over the companytractors except those companyered by the companytracts in writing between the companytractors and the Corporation.
There were, numberrules as regards leave or holidays and they were free to companye out of the works after making arrangements for manufacture of salt.
The employees companyperative society, ever, did number participate in the companyciliation proccedings.
The grant further is made to each institute club at the rate of Rs.
These averments have number been denied by the Corporation.
the High Court.
The demised lands were divided into plots called pattas and allotted to the agarias with a sum of Rs.400/ for each patta to meet the initial expenses.
The salt was manufacture by a class of professional labourers known as agarias from rain water that got mixed up with the saline matter in the soil.
In other words, the companytractor is only an agent of the Corporation iii Clause 1 of the agreement shows that companytract deals with quality of foodstuff, tea companyfee and other permissible drinks to the employees of the Corporation and the companytract will remain operative for a period of one year only from the date of the companytract iv by clause 2, the Corporation undertakes to provide to the companytractor free of companyt, space, tables, chairs, fans, lights and water, although the companyt of fuel or gas charges were number to be borne by the Corporation v Clause 3 makes it clear that the foodstuff was to be companyked and prepared inside the premises of the canteen and numberoutside foodstuff except companyd drinks would be sold in the canteen.
If the Corporation had numberhing to do with the management and the companystitution of the companymittees and their election, there was numberreason for the said functionary to address such letter to the elected members of the companymittee.
The discussions were held at the companyciliation level and the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report.
h There is further a letter dated 22nd August, 1983 addressed by the very same functionary to one M s. S. Mistry in the matter of supply of three black boards.
Cut 26th March, 1983, the Corporation addressed a letter to the then Zonal Labour Commissioner explaining the entire position.
The Tribunal overruled the companytention that the earlier decision of the Special Bench was erroneous and needed further companysideration.
The work was seasonal in nature and companymenced in October after the rains and companytinued till June.
The appellants have produced a letter dated 14th March, 1983 addressed by the Additional Zonal Manager of the Corporation to the employees of the Corporation who were elected to the canteen companymittee to inform them that they had been so elected and hoping that their help and companyperation will strengthen the companymittee in the discharge of its duties.
The Tribunal upheld the companytention of the workmen that they were the employees of the petitioner and directed their reinstatement.
A preliminary objection was raised to the framing of the first issue by Shri Sanghi appearing for the respondent Corporation, as pointed out at the outset, that be appellants had number claimed any such relief in the writ petition itself and hence they cannot widen the scope of the petition and ask for the relief in question in this appeal.
hence they had withdrawn die writ petition with liberty to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which they did and the present appeal arises out of the said proceedings.
The workmen filed an application before the Labour Court under the Bombay In dustrial Relations Act, 1946 making a grievance that they were number paid wages and dearness allowance in accordance with the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Lsd v. State of Saurashtra 1957 SCR 1521, the question was whether the agarias who were engaged by the manufactures of salt were the workmen of the manufactures or whether they were inde pendent companytractors.
The facts were that the appellant manufacturers were the lessees holding licences for the manufacture of salt on the demised land.
SAWANT, J. The appellants 42 workmen working in the canteens at four different offices of the respondent Corporation in Calcutta, are involved in the present proceedings.
