Raju, J. - (1.) These three appeals relate to a common grievance of a group of 33 canteen employees of Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen and involve for consideration a vexed question but often relentlessly fought and put in issue between the workers and management as to status and relationship of workers in such canteens vis-a-vis the main industry or establishment concerned. At the Central Office of the Indian Overseas Bank at Madras (for short "IOB"), the canteen facilities have been provided to the staff employees and the departments of the Central Office, in the main building, new building and canteen block as also CandI Branch and Cathedral Branch. Initially, it appears that the said canteen was run through a contractor engaged by the management of the bank. But subsequently on the representation of the All India Overseas Bank Employees Union, the Central Office of IOB agreed for the floating of a society in the name and style of "Indian Overseas Bank Staff Co-operative Canteen" with effect from 3-1-72. In order to facilitate the running of such a canteen, the Central Office has not only got the erstwhile contractor, who was running the same in the canteen block, vacated the canteen premises on 30-10-72 but wanted the Co-operative Canteen to commence its functions from 2-1-73 to ensure continuity in providing the services to the staff. The Central Office agreed to provide all infrastructural facilities, such as premises, furniture, utensils, electricity (other than fuel), cost of fuel initially up to a maximum of 600 per month, subsequently increased to 6000 per month and water supply. This was in addition to providing the oven and burners, wash basin, gas and cylinders and a subsidy @ Rs. 12.50 per member of the staff using the canteen. The Co-operative canteen was promoted in that manner not only with the blessings and active co-operation and assistance of the Central Office but the all promoters were actually the serving members of the staff of the bank. No doubt, after the formation of the Co-operative canteen, a separate account has been opened in the name of the canteen which was operated by the promoters and periodically funds have been credited to the said account by the Central Office to carry on the day-to-day administration of the bank. It is also a fact that the staff required were employed by the promoters who have been administering the canteen. It is seen from the inter se correspondence and the material placed on record that the amount of contribution of funds and the subsidy was being increased from time to time depending upon the escalation of the costs of maintenance on the representation of the persons in-charge of the running of the co-operative canteen. Despite such increase, having regard to the subsidised and concessional rate of supply of the edibles as also the beverage supplied to the staff employees both ends could not be economically met resulting in the persons in-charge of the canteen declaring their inability to continue the canteen in the absence of further increase in the subsidy and grant to make up the vast difference. Since the bank was indifferent, the canteen was closed with effect from 26-4-90.
(2.) There is no controversy or dispute over the further fact that the canteen was being run only with the funds provided by the Central Office and the amounts realised from day-to-day receipts and neither the promoters nor any of the employees using the canteen otherwise had either contributed any capital or was obliged to make any such contribution to make the canteen economically viable or keep going at any cost. It is also not in dispute that with the closure of the canteen the workers engaged have been thrown out of employment and this resulted in an industrial dispute, raised through the workers' union. Their stand was that the staff canteen in question was really managed by the bank though the day-to-day affairs of the management was entrusted to the employees of the bank nominated by the recognised union of the bank and, therefore, the canteen employees have to be treated as the employees of the bank and restored to work. In this connection, the union sought to draw inspiration from the practice in vogue in the Railways and other Nationalised banks, including State Bank of India. Per contra, the Central Office took the stand that except providing the facilities as well as funds in the nature of grant and subsidy, the Staff Canteen was operated only by the promoters by engaging the required workers and there is no nexus or any relationship of an employer-employee between the management of IOB and workers of the canteen and consequently they cannot be considered to be the employees of the management.
(3.) The conciliation proceedings having failed, the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai: "Whether the demand of the workmen of the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen represented by the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union, Madras for treating the staff of such canteens which are run by the local implementation committees, as workman of Indian Overseas Bank for giving them the same status, pay and facilities as are available to other Class IV employees of the Bank is justified If so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled - ;