Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The respondent No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking. It was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 30th November, 1972. One of the main objects for which the respondent No. 1 was established was to promote, encourage and develop the availability, use, supply and distribution at reasonable cost in the country of artificial limbs to needy persons particularly disabled defence personnel. For this purpose the respondent No. 1 set up a factory where more than 700 persons are employed. The respondent No. 1 also set up a canteen for its employees. From time to time agreements were entered into between the respondent No. 1 and different contractors by which the contractor agreed to prepare and serve food stuffs and other refreshments at the canteen. At the relevant time the concerned contractor was Aditya Shukla, the respondent No. 2 herein.
(2.) According to the appellants, they were employed by several of the contractors and had been serving in the canteen for several years. During the pendency of the contract with the respondent No. 2, the appellants raised an industrial dispute claiming to be regular workmen of the respondent No. 1. The dispute was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court. The Labour Court considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, and by an award dated 10th May, 1996, came to the conclusion that the appellants were not the employees of respondent No. 1 but were employees of respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved with the award, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad. The High Court was of the view that the appellants' claim was primarily for abolition of contract labour in canteens and consequent absorption of the contract labourers as employees of the principal employer, in this case the respondent No. 1. The High Court rejected the submission and dismissed the writ petition.
(3.) Before us learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court had wholly misdirected itself. According to the appellants, the issue was not whether the Labour Court could have directed abolition of contract labour but the issue was whether the Labour Court was bound, on the basis of the decision of this Court in Parimal Chandra Raha and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 611, to hold that the appellants were in fact regular employees of the respondent No. 1. It was submitted that the respondent No. 1 was bound by Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 to set up the canteen. It was also submitted that the State Government had by notification specified the factory of the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 46(1) of the Factories Act. It was contended that since the respondent No. 1 was statutorily obliged to provide and maintain a canteen for the use of its employees, the canteen was part of the respondent No. 1's establishment and therefore the appellants who were employed in such canteen were the employees of the respondent No. 1. It is the appellants' case that the various terms in the contract between the contractor and the respondent No. 1 clearly showed that the appellants were under the direct supervision and control of respondent No. 1. This, together with the fact that the appellants had continued to be employed in the canteen despite several changes of contractors, showed that the appellants were in the fact the respondent No. 1's employees.;