Banerjee, J. - (1.) The appellants were the canteen employees working in various canteens in Calcutta University Campus. They prayed for their regularization as University Employees. Initially they moved the learned Single Judge in 1994 by filing W. P. No. 1506 of 1994. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated July 16, 1997 asked the State to consider the representation of the appellants andlpass a reasoned order on the same. While giving such direction His Lordship considered the fact that the University Authorities supervised those canteens through a Centralized Canteen Committee appointed for the said purpose. Moreover the University Authorities were providing infrastructure to run those canteens for the welfare of the students. The University Authorities; were also paying those employees paltry sums as salary which they called as 'wage subsidy'. The University Authorities, however expressed their inability to accede to the prayers of the petitioners in absence of appropriate approval of the State Government. Considering such fact His Lordship asked the State to consider the prayer. Accordingly, the State Authorities considered the prayer and rejected the representation by a reasoned order appearing at page 103 to 109 of the Paper Book. The appellants challenged the said reasoned order in the second writ petition being W. P. No. 190 of 2001. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated February 21, 2001 appearing at page 110, 2112 of the Paper Book dismissed the said application by holding that the appellants' prayer could be effectively considered by the appropriate authority under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Abolition and Regulation Act 1997 or under the appropriate provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. According to His Lordship, the Writ Court was not the proper forum.
(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred the instant appeal.
(3.) We heard the contentions of the appellant, the University Authorities as well as the State. Upon analyzing the rival contentions the following facts reveal :- (i) The canteens run at the University campus for the welfare of the students were supervised by a Centralized Canteen Committee appointed by the University Authorities. (ii) The infrastructural facilities being accommodation, electricity etc. were provided by the University Authorities. Utensils and furniture for the canteens were being purchased out of the fund provided by the University. (iii) Although contended, the University Authorities could not disclose any document in support of their contention that the appellants were engaged through contractor selected through a regular tender process. (iv) No document pertaining to invitation of tender to run those canteens could be disclosed by the University Authorities. (v) The appellants were being paid by the University Authorities. Prior to filing of the writ petition they were allowed to sign the salary sheet maintained by the University Authority for the regular class-IV staff. However, such system stood discontinued immediately after filing of the writ petition and since then the appellants were being paid by the University Authorities against voucher. University contended that such sum was called as 'wage subsidy'. (vi) The University Authorities could not show any document to support their contention that the canteen employees were paid month by month through contractor. (vii) Price of the articles sold from the said canteens was also fixed with the sanction and approval of the University. (viii) From time to time the Senate arid Syndicate considered the prayer of the appellants sympathetically, however University could not take any effective step in the matter in absence of approval of the State Government.;