CHENNAI PORT TRUSTversusTHE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

                         [2018] 5 S.C.R. 637                            637


                     CHENNAI PORT TRUST                                 A
                                 v.
  THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES
 CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 2010)                       B
                          APRIL 27, 2018
  [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
       Service Law – Claim for parity with regular employees – When
justified – Workers/employees employed by appellant-Port Trust          C
provided with the facility of canteen – Respondent No.1-Association
of employees working in the canteen filed writ petition in High Court
for direction to appellant to treat the employees working in the
Canteen as the regular employees working in appellant-Port Trust
and accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at
par with the regular employees – Writ petition allowed by Single        D
Judge – Order upheld by Division Bench – On appeal, held: In
view of identical facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s case
wherein Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus against the main
employer in relation to employees working in the canteen, Division
Bench rightly relied upon the said decision in granting relief to the   E
members of the respondent-Association – No fault in the findings
recorded by Division Bench recorded on the basis of undisputed
facts and documents on record – Constitution of India – Art.226.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                        F
      HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench rightly relied upon the
decision of Supreme Court in Indian Petrochemicals case and
compared the facts of the above case with that of the case at hand
and found great similarities in both for granting relief to the
members of the respondent (Association). The Division Bench
took note of 20 factors of this case, which were found identical to     G
the facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s case wherein
Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus against the main
employer in relation to such employees working in the canteen
run for the benefit of the employer. [Paras 13, 14] [641-A-C]
                                                                        H
                                 637
638            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A           1.2 No fault is found in the said findings recorded by the
      Division Bench as these findings were recorded on the basis of
      undisputed facts and documents on record of the case. That apart,
      these findings were recorded keeping in view the facts involved
      and law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Indian
      Petrochemicals. [Para 15] [644-C]
B
             1.3 The approach and the reasoning of the two Courts
      below (Writ Court and Division Bench) while deciding the writ
      petition and the appeal arising out of the writ petition keeping in
      view the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Indian
C     Petrochemicals is just, proper and legal. In other words, if on the
      undisputed facts, Supreme Court has granted benefit to the
      canteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals then there
      is no reason that on the same set of undisputed facts arising in
      this case, the Court should not grant the benefit to the
      employees/workers in this case. It is more so when no
D     distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua Indian
      Petrochemical’s case. [Paras 17, 18] [644-E-G]
            Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v.
            Shramik Sena & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 439 : [1999] 1
            Suppl. SCR 47 – relied on.
E
                             Case Law Reference
      [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 47             relied on            Para 13


F           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1381
      of 2010.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2006 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 66 of 2006.
             Keshav Thakur, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Anil Kaushik, Abhishek
G
      Mishra, Rajinder Singh, Shiv Prakash Pandey, B. Vinodh Kanna,
      A. Sriram, M. Yogesh Kanna, Jayanth Muth Raj, P. V. Dinesh, Advs. for
      the appearing parties.


H
CHENNAI PORT TRUST v. CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES                  639
                  CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSN.



      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               A

      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 21.02.2006 passed by the
High Court of judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.66 of 2006 whereby
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and order dated 24.08.2005          B
passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.6872 of
2001 by which the Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 herein.

      2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow to                C
appreciate the question involved in the appeal.

       3. The appellant is “Chennai Port Trust” at Chennai. It has been
in existence for the last many decades and has a large administrative
and technical set up to run their multifarious activities on the Port.
                                                                               D
       4. Large numbers of workers/employees are employed by the
Port Trust who work round the clock in shifts to run and maintain the
activities of the Port Trust. These Port Trust workers/employees are
provided with the facility of canteen. A Co-Operative Society called
“Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Co-operative Canteen Limited”
runs the Canteen. It has been running since 1964. This canteen has             E
employed a large number of employees to run the canteen. The employees
working in the canteen have formed an Association known as “Chennai
Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association”
(for short called “Association”)-respondent No.1 herein.
                                                                               F
       5. The Association-respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition
being W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the High Court at Madras against the
appellant herein (Chennai Port Trust) espousing the cause of their
members (employees working in the Canteen) and sought a writ of
mandamus against the appellant - Chennai Port Trust (respondent No.3
in the writ petition) directing the appellant to treat the employees working   G
in the Canteen to be the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust
and accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at par
with the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust.

                                                                               H
640             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A            6. According to the writ petitioner (employees concerned), they
      have been working in the Canteen for decades and regularly catering
      and fulfilling the needs of the employees of the Port Trust. According to
      the Association, the members of the Association - employees working in
      the canteen are entitled to claim the same benefit and perks which are
      being given to the regular permanent employees of the Chennai Port
B
      Trust. The Association also pointed out the similar instances of other
      government organizations wherein the benefits of this nature were given
      to the employees working in the organizations alike the members of the
      Association in question.

C             7. The Chennai Port Trust mainly opposed the writ petition on
      two issues. First, the Chennai Port Trust has no control whatsoever
      over any of the activities of the Canteen in question including any control
      over its employees and second, the question as to whether the canteen
      employees are to be treated as employees of the Chennai Port Trust or
      not is a question of fact and, therefore, the writ petition is not the effective
D     remedy to decide this question. According to the Chennai Port Trust,
      such issues should be raised before the Industrial Tribunal for its
      adjudication.

            8. The Writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petition filed by
E     the Association(respondent No.1 herein) and accordingly issued a writ
      of mandamus against the appellant (Chennai Port Trust), as prayed by
      the writ petitioner in their writ petition. In other words, the writ Court
      granted the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.

             9. The appellant (Chennai Port Trust) felt aggrieved and filed
F     intra court appeal before the Division Bench in the High Court. By
      impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld
      the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the present
      appeal by way of special leave by the Chennai Port Trust.

            10. Heard Mr. Keshav Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant
G     and Mr. Anil Kaushik, Mr. B. Vinodh Kanna and Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,
      learned counsel for the respondents.

             11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
      of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.
H
CHENNAI PORT TRUST v. CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES               641
CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSN.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]



       12. In our considered view, the Writ Court (Single Judge) and the    A
Division Bench were right in their reasoning and the conclusion.
       13. The Division Bench, in our opinion, rightly relied upon the
decision of this Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.
and Anr. vs Shramik Sena & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 439 and compared
the facts of the above case with that of the case at hand and found great   B
similarities in both for granting relief to the members of the respondent
(Association).
       14. The Division Bench in Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned
judgment took note of 20 factors of this case, which were found identical
to the facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s case (supra) wherein
                                                                            C
this Court had issued a writ of mandamus against the main employer in
relation to such employees working in the canteen run for the benefit of
the employer. It is apposite to reproduce Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned
judgment which read as under:
         “14. Even before the learned single Judge, the Port Trust
       objected to deciding the factual issues in proceedings under         D
       Article 226 since the appropriate forum is only the Labour
       Court or the Tribunal. The learned single Judge observed
       that the averments in the affidavit have not been specifically
       denied in the counter affidavit except to state that the
       Management of the Port Trust has no control over the                 E
       functioning of the canteen. Therefore, apart from a general
       denial, the various assertions were not specifically denied.
       The learned single Judge then proceeded to set down the
       various facts and circumstances that show the
       administrative control exercised by the Port Trust over the
       Canteen, and they are as follows :                                   F
           (i) The fact that the establishment is kept open during
           the entire 24 hours with employees working in several
           shifts is not denied. Thereby, the necessity of the
           workmen to have their food inside the factory itself is
           confirmed and that the canteen is mainly intended only
                                                                            G
           for the workers.
           (ii) The fact that the Rules framed by the Society for
           running the canteen shall be subject to the approval of
           the Chairman is not denied. This proves that the ultimate
           control of the administration of the canteen is with the
           Port Trust.                                                      H
642   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     (iii) It is only the workers belonging to the Port Trust
      who are eligible to become members of the Society and
      not others.

      (iv) It is only the nominee of the Port Trust who can act
      as the Chairman of the Co-operative Society.
B
      (v) The Port Trust administration has the right to audit
      the accounts of the canteen.

      (vi) Electricity and water are supplied by the Port Trust
      free of charge. The premises is also held by the Society
C     rent free.

      (vii) As per bye-law 15, the fourth respondent Society,
      the President as well as four other contractors shall be
      nominated by the Registrar only in consultation with the
      Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust.
D
      (viii) The Port Trust provides cost of the staff employed
      by the canteen, maintains the building, reimburses 100%
      of the fuel costs and all the benefits to the canteen
      employees.
E     (ix) The prices of the food stuff are very cheap and the
      food is carried in trickles to the workers in the
      Marshalling Yard, ONGC Pipeline, Oil Dock, Diesel
      Loco and such other places where a canteen cannot be
      established and specifically intended only for the
      workers.
F
      (x) The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) of the Port
      Trust has been nominated as the President of the canteen
      and the entire canteen affairs are handled and controlled
      by the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Port Trust.
G
      (xi) The financial matters are controlled by the Financial
      Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Port Trust.
      (xii) The President of the fourth respondent controls all
      policy matters concerning the canteen.
H
CHENNAI PORT TRUST v. CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES        643
CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSN.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]



        (xiii) It is a matter of common knowledge that at least as   A
        far as Chennai Port Trust is concerned, it is located in a
        place that the nearest restaurant or canteen would be at
        least two to three kilometres away from the entrance of
        the Port Trust. Therefore, the canteen is a must not only
        for employees, but also for the entire staff at various
                                                                     B
        levels and also visitors having official and commercial
        dealings with the Port Trust. The Port Trust itself is a
        very large and sprawling area from one end to the other.
        Therefore, the canteen is an indispensable necessity to
        the Port Trust.
                                                                     C
     The learned single Judge thereafter observed that none of
     the aforesaid positive claims of the writ petitioner are
     denied by the respondents. It is only because there was no
     dispute on facts that the learned single Judge proceeded
     to decide the matter, though the workmen had directly filed
     the writ petition without approaching the Tribunal.             D
     15. If we see the Indian Petrochemical’s case, the similarity
     of the factual issues is quite startling. In that case –
        (a) The canteen has been there since the inception of
        the appellant’s factory.
                                                                     E
        (b) The workmen have been employed for long years
        and despite a change of contractors, the workers have
        continued to be employed in the canteen.
        (c) The premises, furniture, fixture, fuel, electricity,
        utensils etc. have been provided for by the appellant.       F
        (d) The wages of the canteen workers have to be
        reimbursed by the appellant.
        (e) The supervision and control on the canteen is
        exercised by the appellant through its authorised officer,
        as can be seen from the various clauses of the contract      G
        between the appellant and the contractor.
        (f) The contractor is nothing but an agent or a manager
        of the appellant, who works completely under the
        supervision, control and directions of the appellant.
                                                                     H
644             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A               (g) The workmen have the protection of continuous
                employment in the establishment.
            On the basis of the above facts, the Supreme Court arrived
            at the opinion that the workmen were the workmen of the
            management and by the same process of reasoning, the
B           learned single Judge also came to the conclusion that the
            canteen workmen were the workmen of the Port Trust. We
            see no error in this reasoning.”
             15. We find no fault in the aforementioned findings recorded by
      the Division Bench as, in our view, these findings were recorded on the
C     basis of undisputed facts and documents on record of the case. That
      apart, these findings were recorded keeping in view the facts involved
      and law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals
      (supra)
             16. Mere perusal of the decision rendered in the case of Indian
D     Petrochemicals (supra) would go to show that in that case also,
      somewhat similar question, which is the subject matter of this appeal,
      had arisen at the instance of the employees working in canteen. This
      Court (Three Judge Bench) elaborately examined the question and took
      note of the relevant undisputed facts, which had bearing over the question,
      granted the reliefs to the employees concerned.
E
            17. In our considered opinion, the approach and the reasoning of
      the two Courts below (Writ Court and Division Bench) while deciding
      the writ petition and the appeal arising out of the writ petition keeping in
      view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian
      Petrochemicals (supra) is just, proper and legal.
F
            18. In other words, if on the undisputed facts, this Court has
      granted benefit to the canteen workers in the case of Indian
      Petrochemicals (supra) then there is no reason that on the same set of
      undisputed facts arising in this case, the Court should not grant the benefit
      to the employees/workers in this case. It is more so when no
G     distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua Indian
      Petrochemicals’s case(supra).
            19. We are, therefore, in agreement with the approach, reasoning
      and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below.

H
CHENNAI PORT TRUST v. CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES                       645
CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSN.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]



       20. We are, however, not impressed by the submission of the                  A
learned counsel for the appellant (Chennai Port Trust) when he contended
that the writ Court should not have entertained the writ petition and
instead the respondent (Writ Petitioner-Association) should have been
granted liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for
adjudication of the dispute raised by them in the writ petition.
                                                                                    B
       21. In the first place, writ Court having entertained the writ petition
and granted relief on merits, this objection has lost its significance now;
Second, the appellate Court also having gone into the merits of the case
and affirmed the order of the writ Court on merits, it is too late to entertain
such submission, which is technical in nature; and third, the findings on
merits have been recorded by the two Courts on the basis of undisputed              C
facts/documents requiring no trial on facts.
       22. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the submission
of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.
       23. Though learned counsel for the appellant argued some more                D
issues but they did not impress us so as to reverse the findings of the two
courts below and in any case, in the light of the findings recorded by the
two Courts below, which are based on the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra), we need not entertain his
submissions.
                                                                                    E
      24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the
appeal, which fails and is accordingly dismissed.


Divya Pandey                                                   Appeal dismissed .
                                                                                    F




                                                                                    G




                                                                                    H