It has been in existence for the last many decades and has a large administrative and technical set up to run their multifarious activities on the Port.
The Writ Court Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Association respondent No.1 herein and accordingly issued a writ of mandamus against the appellant Chennai Port Trust , as prayed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in the appeal.
The appellant Chennai Port Trust felt aggrieved and filed intra companyrt appeal before the Division Bench in the High Court.
It is only because there was numberdispute on facts that the learned single Judge proceeded to decide the matter, though the workmen had directly filed the writ petition without approaching the Tribunal.
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.
Heard Mr. Keshav Thakur, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kaushik, Mr. B. Vinodh Kanna and Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned companynsel for the respondents.
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the Chennai Port Trust.
In other words, the writ Court granted the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.
In our companysidered view, the Writ Court Single Judge and the Division Bench were right in their reasoning and the companyclusion.
have been provided for by the appellant.
The wages of the canteen workers have to be reimbursed by the appellant.
The Association also pointed out the similar instances of other government organizations wherein the benefits of this nature were given to the employees working in the organizations alike the members of the Association in question.
In that case The canteen has been there since the inception of the appellants factory.
The premises, furniture, fixture, fuel, electricity, utensils etc.
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.
The Association respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the High Court at Madras against the appellant herein Chennai Port Trust espousing the cause of their members employees working in the Canteen and sought a writ of mandamus against the appellant Chennai Port Trust respondent No.3 in the writ petition directing the appellant to treat the employees working in the Canteen to be the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust and accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at par with the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust.
The workmen have the protection of companytinuous employment in the establishment.
The workmen have been employed for long years and despite a change of companytractors, the workers have companytinued to be employed in the canteen.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.02.2006 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.66 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.27 order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the Single Judge 161126 IST Reason of the High Court in Writ Petition No.6872 of 2001 by which the Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.
