A.K. Banerjee, J. - (1.) Writ petitioners were the canteen employees of the respondent company. Some of the canteen employees had already been regularized by absorbing them on regular basis whereas the petitioners had not yet been considered for the same. Hence this writ petition. There were altogether 4 writ petitioners working for about 20/25 years as canteen boys. Their salaries were paid by cash vouchers. However, the PF and ESI deductions were made at par with the regular employees of the company. The private respondents being respondent nos. 4 to 6 were also canteen employees working on similar terms and conditions applicable to the petitioners. They were regularised by the company and absorbed in regular posts. From the letter of appointment of one of the private respondents being respondent no. 6 appearing at page 63 of the writ petitioner it appears that the said respondent was appointed as "unskilled workman" with a further direction that he would be required to work in "any other department including canteen"
(2.) The respondent authority in reply to the letter of the writ petitioner demanding justice contended that the claim of the petitioners were "false due to lack of evidence". The factum of PF and ESI deductions and the absorption of the private respondents were, however, admitted by the management. It was however contended that those factors had not given any right to the petitioners to claim regularisation.
(3.) In the Affidavit -in -Opposition it was contended that the writ petitioners were engaged by a canteen committee set up for the said purpose and had nothing to do with the respondent company. There was no privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent company. Hence, question of their regularisation did not arise at all. The first paragraph of the letter of reply dated May 23/25, 2000 is relevant herein and is quoted below: Please refer to your letter dated 10th May, 2000. In reply to your aforesaid letter, we are to state that your statement regarding the length of services rendered by your clients, Sri Samar Bose, Sri Nanindra Nath Biswas, Sri Swapan Maity and Sri Gautam Das working as canteen boys in this company are absolutely false due to lack of evidence. It is needless to mention that the statutory monthly deduction of P.F. and E.S.I. from their earnings as per applicable provisions under the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 respectively, does not ensure any legal status and/or right for absorption of such canteen boys as regular cadre in this company. The absorption of. Sri Shiva Prasad Sengupta, Sri Sankar Das and -Sri Robin Das in this company does not evolve any legal right and status for the said canteen boys claiming for absorption in this company on regular basis.;