In those circumstances, the Tribunal passed an award that these workmen should be treated as employees of the appellant and they are entitled to payment of appropriate scales and designations in terms of Ex.
The learned Single Judge, who decided the matter in the first instance, held that a writ would lie against a companypany under a private management following the decision in T. Gattaiah vs. Commissioner of Labour, 1981 II LLJ 54, in which it was held that establishment of a canteen and its maintenance is a statutory requirement under Section 46 of the Act a public duty is imposed on the companypany to establish and maintain the canteen inasmuch as members of the respondent union are working in the canteen they are entitled to seek a mandamus.
Members of general public are the shareholders and the shares of the companypany are traded in through various stock exchanges in the companyntry.
However, numbericing that the expression any person or authority used in Article 226 of the Constitution should number be companyfined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of State but would companyer any other person or body performing public duty.
He, therefore, held that when a public duty is called upon to be discharged by a private management, a writ of mandamus would lie and companyld be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The premises, furniture, fixture, fuel, electricity, utensils, etc.
On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
On that basis, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal.
On that basis the learned Single Judge granted reliefs sought for by the respondents, however, imposing certain restrictions with regard to the age, being medically fit, on the date of the writ petition, had put in a minimum of three years of companytinuous service and such service prior to the attainment of the minimum qualifying age under the companypany should be ignored.
The wages of the canteen workers have to be reimbursed by the appellant.
together with companynting of entire service for the purpose of terminal benefits.
The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party, numbermatter by what means the duty is imposed.
have been provided for by the appellant.
Thus the Tribunal held that these facts clearly indicated that the appellant exercised administrative, financial and disciplinary companytrol over the workmen in question.
It is unnecessary to examine the companytention whether the matter is companyered by a subsequent decision or number as the facts of the present case stand on its own.
Against this award, a writ petition was filed before the High Court.
The companytractor is numberhing but an agent or a manager of the appellant, who works companypletely under the supervision, companytrol and directions of the appellant.
had also been categorically specified to be provided by the appellant and ESI companye for the permanent establishment and for the present workmen was the same that after the evidence was tendered by the workmen the appellant got the companye changed and the appellant transferred the workmen from one place to another and that the amount to be surrendered by way of unpaid salaries had to be remitted back to the management.
The reference had been made to the Tribunal and adjudication had been made by the Tribunal as to the status of the workmen, the nature of employment, companytrol exercised by the appellant, which leave numberroom for doubt that they are the employees of the appellant.
The companytributions like ESI, Provident Fund, etc.
The Tribunal recorded the findings that the canteen had been working for the benefit of the workmen within the premises provided by and with the equipment supplied by the appellant that the appellant supplies the provisions for the preparation of foodstuffs that the appellant issues token to the employees, who on production of the same obtain foodstuffs from the canteen that the Committee appointed by the appellant decides the menu and as per the directions and supervision of the Catering Officer, the canteen functions that the quality and quantity of the foodstuffs is supervised by him, who functions under the Committee.
W 49 in the modified form.
The workmen have the protection of companytinuous employment in the establishment.
The Tribunal held against them, as there was numbermaterial to show that the management had discussed on each point and thereafter an agreement had been drafted.
A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by respondent No.1 seeking for a writ of mandamus to treat the members of the respondent union who are employees working in the canteen of the appellants factory as employees of the appellant and for grant of monetary and other companysequential benefits.
The Tribunal held that numberother material is required to hold them to be employees of the appellant.
W12 and W14 from 1.4.1979 with all companysequential and attendant benefits of arrears of pay, etc.
The High Court dismissed the same stating that it is companyered by another matter.
The Division Bench referred to their decision in Rakesh Gupta vs. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd. Hyderabad Ors.,
670 OF 1997 The appellant is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with the object of manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
LITTTTTTJ RAJENDRA BABU, J. Civil Appeal No.
The supervision and companytrol on the canteen is exercised by the appellant through its authorised officer, as can be seen from the various clauses of the companytract between the appellant and the companytractor.
W 50 and obtained Ex.
Hence this appeal.
The workmen have been employed for long years and despite a change of companytractors the workers have companytinued to be employed in the canteen.
He thus rejected the companytention.
