VST INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Appeal No. 670 of 1997 The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with the object of manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Members of general public are the shareholders and the shares of the company are traded in through various stock exchanges in the country. A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by respondent No. 1 seeking for a writ of mandamus to treat the members of the respondent union who are employees working in the canteen of the appellant's factory as employees of the appellant and for grant of monetary and other consequential benefits. The canteen is provided in the factory premises of the appellant pursuant to Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') , which obliges a factory employing more than 250 workmen to provide such a canteen. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the appellant had been managing the canteen up to the year 1982 and thereafter introduced the contract system for maintaining the canteen so established; that though the management of the canteen had been entrusted to the contractors from time to time, the personnel employed in the canteen were retained by all the contractors and they have been paid salaries through contractors; that the workmen employed in the canteen have been provided with ESI benefits under the Code No. VST, the appellant, and benefits arising under the Employees Provident Funds Act are also provided similarly; that the appellant has also provided a building along with furniture, utensils, cutlery, gas, electricity, water supply and other facilities; that the contractor is engaged only to prepare the food and serve it to the employees and that the quality of the food and the rates are controlled by the management of the appellant.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant, contention was raised that no writ would lie against the appellant inasmuch as the appellant is a company, which is not an authority or a person against whom a writ would lie. It was submitted that they do no discharge any public duty and hence the writ cannot be issued. On the merits of the matter, the appellant disputed various questions of fact and urged that the decision of this Court in Parimal Chandra Raha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC611: (1995 AIR SCW 2609 : AIR 1995 SC 1666 : 1995 Lab 1c 2064) , would not be applicable to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned single Judge, who decided the matter in the first instance, held that a writ would lie against a company under a private management following the decision in T. Gattaiah v. Commissioner of Labour, (1981) 2 Lab LJ 54 : (1981 Lab 1c 942) (Andh Pra) , in which it was held that establishment of a canteen and its maintenance is a statutory requirement; under Section 46 of the Act a public duty is imposed on the company to establish and maintain the canteen; inasmuch as members of the respondent-union are working in the canteen they are entitled to seek a mandamus. He, therefore, held that when a public duty is called upon to be discharged by a private management, a writ of mandamus would lie and could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. He thus rejected the contention.

(3.) On the merits of the matter, the learned single Judge followed the decision in Parimal Chandra Raha's case (1995 AIR SCW 2609 : AIR 1995 SC 1666 : 1995 Lab 1c 2064) holding that when the duty had been enjoined on the appellant to provide and maintain a canteen facility under the Factories Act it becomes the obligation of the appellant to establish a canteen and that is what the appellant had done. Therefore, when that work is got done through somebody else by providing the necessary infrastructure and other facilities, when the personnel did not change though the contractors changed from time to time, he held that they become employees of the appellant. On that basis the learned single Judge granted reliefs sought for by the respondents, however, imposing certain restrictions with regard to the age, being medically fit, on the date of the writ petition, had put in a minimum of three years of continuous service and such service prior to the attainment of the minimum qualifying age under the company should be ignored.