CHENNAI PORT TRUST versus THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. on 27 April 2018

CHENNAI PORT TRUST

v.

THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEESCANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 2010)

APRIL 27, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Service Law – Claim for parity with regular employees – Whenjustified – Workers/employees employed by appellant-Port Trustprovided with the facility of canteen – Respondent No.1-Associationof employees working in the canteen filed writ petition in High Courtfor direction to appellant to treat the employees working in theCanteen as the regular employees working in appellant-Port Trustand accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits atpar with the regular employees – Writ petition allowed by SingleJudge – Order upheld by Division Bench – On appeal, held: Inview of identical facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s casewherein Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus against the mainemployer in relation to employees working in the canteen, DivisionBench rightly relied upon the said decision in granting relief to themembers of the respondent-Association – No fault in the findingsrecorded by Division Bench recorded on the basis of undisputedfacts and documents on record – Constitution of India – Art.226.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench rightly relied upon thedecision of Supreme Court in Indian Petrochemicals case andcompared the facts of the above case with that of the case at handand found great similarities in both for granting relief to themembers of the respondent (Association). The Division Benchtook note of 20 factors of this case, which were found identical tothe facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s case whereinSupreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus against the mainemployer in relation to such employees working in the canteenrun for the benefit of the employer. [Paras 13, 14] [641-A-C]

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

A1.2 No fault is found in the said findings recorded by theDivision Bench as these findings were recorded on the basis ofundisputed facts and documents on record of the case. That apart,these findings were recorded keeping in view the facts involvedand law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of IndianPetrochemicals. [Para 15] [644-C]B

1.3 The approach and the reasoning of the two Courtsbelow (Writ Court and Division Bench) while deciding the writpetition and the appeal arising out of the writ petition keeping inview the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of IndianCPetrochemicals is just, proper and legal. In other words, if on theundisputed facts, Supreme Court has granted benefit to thecanteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals then thereis no reason that on the same set of undisputed facts arising inthis case, the Court should not grant the benefit to theemployees/workers in this case. It is more so when noDdistinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua IndianPetrochemical’s case. [Paras 17, 18] [644-E-G]

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v.Shramik Sena & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 439 : [1999] 1Suppl. SCR 47 – relied on.E

Case Law Reference

[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 47

relied on Para 13

FCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1381of 2010.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2006 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 66 of 2006.

Keshav Thakur, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Anil Kaushik, AbhishekGMishra, Rajinder Singh, Shiv Prakash Pandey, B. Vinodh Kanna,A. Sriram, M. Yogesh Kanna, Jayanth Muth Raj, P. V. Dinesh, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directedagainst the final judgment and order dated 21.02.2006 passed by theHigh Court of judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.66 of 2006 wherebythe Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by theappellant herein and affirmed the judgment and order dated 24.08.2005passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.6872 of2001 by which the Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed byrespondent No.1 herein.

2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow toappreciate the question involved in the appeal.

3. The appellant is “Chennai Port Trust” at Chennai. It has beenin existence for the last many decades and has a large administrativeand technical set up to run their multifarious activities on the Port.

4. Large numbers of workers/employees are employed by thePort Trust who work round the clock in shifts to run and maintain theactivities of the Port Trust. These Port Trust workers/employees areprovided with the facility of canteen. A Co-Operative Society called“Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Co-operative Canteen Limited”runs the Canteen. It has been running since 1964. This canteen hasemployed a large number of employees to run the canteen. The employeesworking in the canteen have formed an Association known as “ChennaiPort Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association”(for short called “Association”)-respondent No.1 herein.

5. The Association-respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petitionbeing W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the High Court at Madras against theappellant herein (Chennai Port Trust) espousing the cause of theirmembers (employees working in the Canteen) and sought a writ ofmandamus against the appellant - Chennai Port Trust (respondent No.3in the writ petition) directing the appellant to treat the employees workingin the Canteen to be the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trustand accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at parwith the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6. According to the writ petitioner (employees concerned), theyhave been working in the Canteen for decades and regularly cateringand fulfilling the needs of the employees of the Port Trust. According tothe Association, the members of the Association - employees working inthe canteen are entitled to claim the same benefit and perks which arebeing given to the regular permanent employees of the Chennai PortBTrust. The Association also pointed out the similar instances of othergovernment organizations wherein the benefits of this nature were givento the employees working in the organizations alike the members of theAssociation in question.

C7. The Chennai Port Trust mainly opposed the writ petition ontwo issues. First, the Chennai Port Trust has no control whatsoeverover any of the activities of the Canteen in question including any controlover its employees and second, the question as to whether the canteenemployees are to be treated as employees of the Chennai Port Trust ornot is a question of fact and, therefore, the writ petition is not the effectiveDremedy to decide this question. According to the Chennai Port Trust,such issues should be raised before the Industrial Tribunal for itsadjudication.

8. The Writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petition filed bythe Association(respondent No.1 herein) and accordingly issued a writEof mandamus against the appellant (Chennai Port Trust), as prayed bythe writ petitioner in their writ petition. In other words, the writ Courtgranted the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.

9. The appellant (Chennai Port Trust) felt aggrieved and filedFintra court appeal before the Division Bench in the High Court. Byimpugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheldthe order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the presentappeal by way of special leave by the Chennai Port Trust.

10. Heard Mr. Keshav Thakur, learned counsel for the appellantGand Mr. Anil Kaushik, Mr. B. Vinodh Kanna and Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,learned counsel for the respondents.

H

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.

12. In our considered view, the Writ Court (Single Judge) and theDivision Bench were right in their reasoning and the conclusion.

13. The Division Bench, in our opinion, rightly relied upon thedecision of this Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.and Anr. vs Shramik Sena & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 439 and comparedthe facts of the above case with that of the case at hand and found greatsimilarities in both for granting relief to the members of the respondent(Association).

14. The Division Bench in Paras 14 and 15 of the impugnedjudgment took note of 20 factors of this case, which were found identicalto the facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s case (supra) whereinthis Court had issued a writ of mandamus against the main employer inrelation to such employees working in the canteen run for the benefit ofthe employer. It is apposite to reproduce Paras 14 and 15 of the impugnedjudgment which read as under:

“14. Even before the learned single Judge, the Port Trustobjected to deciding the factual issues in proceedings underArticle 226 since the appropriate forum is only the LabourCourt or the Tribunal. The learned single Judge observedthat the averments in the affidavit have not been specificallydenied in the counter affidavit except to state that theManagement of the Port Trust has no control over thefunctioning of the canteen. Therefore, apart from a generaldenial, the various assertions were not specifically denied.The learned single Judge then proceeded to set down thevarious facts and circumstances that show theadministrative control exercised by the Port Trust over theCanteen, and they are as follows :

(i) The fact that the establishment is kept open duringthe entire 24 hours with employees working in severalshifts is not denied. Thereby, the necessity of theworkmen to have their food inside the factory itself isconfirmed and that the canteen is mainly intended only for the workers.

(ii) The fact that the Rules framed by the Society forrunning the canteen shall be subject to the approval ofthe Chairman is not denied. This proves that the ultimatecontrol of the administration of the canteen is with thePort Trust.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(iii) It is only the workers belonging to the Port Trustwho are eligible to become members of the Society andnot others.

(iv) It is only the nominee of the Port Trust who can actas the Chairman of the Co-operative Society.

(v) The Port Trust administration has the right to auditthe accounts of the canteen.

(vi) Electricity and water are supplied by the Port Trustfree of charge. The premises is also held by the Societyrent free.

(vii) As per bye-law 15, the fourth respondent Society,the President as well as four other contractors shall benominated by the Registrar only in consultation with theChairman of the Chennai Port Trust.

(viii) The Port Trust provides cost of the staff employedby the canteen, maintains the building, reimburses 100%of the fuel costs and all the benefits to the canteenemployees.

(ix) The prices of the food stuff are very cheap and thefood is carried in trickles to the workers in theMarshalling Yard, ONGC Pipeline, Oil Dock, DieselLoco and such other places where a canteen cannot beestablished and specifically intended only for theworkers.

(x) The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) of the PortTrust has been nominated as the President of the canteenand the entire canteen affairs are handled and controlledby the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Port Trust.

(xi) The financial matters are controlled by the FinancialAdviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Port Trust.

(xii) The President of the fourth respondent controls allpolicy matters concerning the canteen.

CHENNAI PORT TRUST v. CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEESCANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSN.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

(xiii) It is a matter of common knowledge that at least asfar as Chennai Port Trust is concerned, it is located in aplace that the nearest restaurant or canteen would be atleast two to three kilometres away from the entrance ofthe Port Trust. Therefore, the canteen is a must not onlyfor employees, but also for the entire staff at variouslevels and also visitors having official and commercialdealings with the Port Trust. The Port Trust itself is avery large and sprawling area from one end to the other.Therefore, the canteen is an indispensable necessity tothe Port Trust.

The learned single Judge thereafter observed that none ofthe aforesaid positive claims of the writ petitioner aredenied by the respondents. It is only because there was nodispute on facts that the learned single Judge proceededto decide the matter, though the workmen had directly filedthe writ petition without approaching the Tribunal.

15. If we see the Indian Petrochemical’s case, the similarityof the factual issues is quite startling. In that case –

(a) The canteen has been there since the inception ofthe appellant’s factory.

(b) The workmen have been employed for long yearsand despite a change of contractors, the workers havecontinued to be employed in the canteen.

(c) The premises, furniture, fixture, fuel, electricity,utensils etc. have been provided for by the appellant.

(d) The wages of the canteen workers have to bereimbursed by the appellant.

(e) The supervision and control on the canteen isexercised by the appellant through its authorised officer,as can be seen from the various clauses of the contractbetween the appellant and the contractor.

(f) The contractor is nothing but an agent or a managerof the appellant, who works completely under thesupervision, control and directions of the appellant.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(g) The workmen have the protection of continuousemployment in the establishment.

On the basis of the above facts, the Supreme Court arrivedat the opinion that the workmen were the workmen of themanagement and by the same process of reasoning, theBlearned single Judge also came to the conclusion that thecanteen workmen were the workmen of the Port Trust. We see no error in this reasoning.”

15. We find no fault in the aforementioned findings recorded bythe Division Bench as, in our view, these findings were recorded on theCbasis of undisputed facts and documents on record of the case. Thatapart, these findings were recorded keeping in view the facts involvedand law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals(supra)

16. Mere perusal of the decision rendered in the case of IndianDPetrochemicals (supra) would go to show that in that case also,somewhat similar question, which is the subject matter of this appeal,had arisen at the instance of the employees working in canteen. ThisCourt (Three Judge Bench) elaborately examined the question and tooknote of the relevant undisputed facts, which had bearing over the question,granted the reliefs to the employees concerned.E

17. In our considered opinion, the approach and the reasoning ofthe two Courts below (Writ Court and Division Bench) while decidingthe writ petition and the appeal arising out of the writ petition keeping inview the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndianPetrochemicals (supra) is just, proper and legal.F

18. In other words, if on the undisputed facts, this Court hasgranted benefit to the canteen workers in the case of IndianPetrochemicals (supra) then there is no reason that on the same set ofundisputed facts arising in this case, the Court should not grant the benefitto the employees/workers in this case. It is more so when noGdistinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua IndianPetrochemicals’s case(supra).

19. We are, therefore, in agreement with the approach, reasoningand the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below.

20. We are, however, not impressed by the submission of thelearned counsel for the appellant (Chennai Port Trust) when he contendedthat the writ Court should not have entertained the writ petition andinstead the respondent (Writ Petitioner-Association) should have beengranted liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court foradjudication of the dispute raised by them in the writ petition.

21. In the first place, writ Court having entertained the writ petitionand granted relief on merits, this objection has lost its significance now;Second, the appellate Court also having gone into the merits of the caseand affirmed the order of the writ Court on merits, it is too late to entertainsuch submission, which is technical in nature; and third, the findings onmerits have been recorded by the two Courts on the basis of undisputedfacts/documents requiring no trial on facts.

22. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the submissionof learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.

23. Though learned counsel for the appellant argued some moreissues but they did not impress us so as to reverse the findings of the twocourts below and in any case, in the light of the findings recorded by thetwo Courts below, which are based on the law laid down by this Court inthe case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra), we need not entertain hissubmissions.

24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in theappeal, which fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Divya Pandey

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H