Supreme Court of India
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, PANTNAGAR, NAINITALversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2000 INSC 399
- Decided
- 10 August 2000
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B MAJMUDAR
Holding
The hostel and cafeteria regulations establish the university's control and implicit obligation, creating a master‑servant relationship; therefore, the cafeteria employees are employees of the university and must be regularised as per the Labour Court award.
Summary
The Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, a residential university established under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958, operates 14 hostels and a cafeteria staffed by about 175 workers who sought regularisation as university employees. The Labour Court declared them regular employees, a decision upheld by the High Court. The university appealed, arguing that the cafeteria was managed by a Food Committee, that there was no master‑servant relationship, and that budgetary constraints made regularisation untenable. The respondents contended that the hostel and cafeteria regulations, enacted under the University Act, imposed an implicit obligation on the university to provide food services, thereby establishing control and supervision over the cafeteria staff. The Supreme Court examined the regulations and held that they demonstrate the university’s overall control, satisfying the tests for a master‑servant relationship, and consequently ordered the regularisation of the cafeteria employees as per the award. The appeals were dismissed, directing the university to implement the award by 31 August 2000 and pay any arrears in twelve equal instalments.
Issues considered
- What is the nature of the relationship between the university and the cafeteria employees under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958 and its Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations?
- Whether the university is obligated to regularise the cafeteria employees as its regular staff?
- Whether the financial burden on the university precludes regularisation of the cafeteria staff?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Subjects
service lawregularisationmaster-servant relationshiphostel and cafeteria regulationseconomic justicesocial justiceindustrial relationsU.P. Agricultural University Actlabour court awardconstitutional law
Judgment
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, A
PANTNAGAR, NAINITAL
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
AUGUST 10, 2000
B
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law:
U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958-Hostel and Cafeteria Regula-
tions-Employees working in cafeteria maintained by University-Regularisa- c
tion-Held, employees of cafeteria to be treated as regular employees of the
University on facts aml 011 grounds of economic and social justice.
Appellant, a residential University, established under U.P. Agricul-
tural University Act, 1958, has 14 hostels and a cafeteria to provide food
services to residents of the hostels and others. There are about 175 employ-
D
ees working in that cafeter1a who claim regularisation of their services as
employees of the University. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court.
The Labour Court declared them to the regular employees of the Univer-
sity from the date of the award, entitled to receive the same salary and
other benefits as the other regular employees of the University. The Uni- E
versity filed writ petitions before High Court. The High Court upheld the
Labour Court's award.
In appeal, the University contended that it was the Food Committee
and not the University which had a role in the matter of management and
control of the cafeteria as per the provisions of Hostel and Cafeteria F
Regulatiom under U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958; that the em-
ployees of the cafeteria were not appointed by the University and, there-
fore, there is no master-servant relationship; that there was no budgetary
allocation in the budget of the University to meet the expenses for salaries
of the cafeteria employees because they are not University employees. The G
appellant further contended that a pragmatic approach should be made
because accepting the claim of the cafeteria employees would place too
heavy a financial burden on the University.
The respondents contended that under the provisions of the Univer-
sity Act and the Regulations, it is obligatory on the students to reside in H
391
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A hostel and avail of food services that is provided by cafeteria maintained
by the University; that therefore the employees working in the cafeteria
should be treated as employees of the University.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD 1. Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations framed under the U.P.
B
Agricultural University Act, 1958 unmistakably depict that the twin con-
ventional tests of implicit obligation and factors of over all control and su-
pervision by the University stand satisfied and the legal responsibility can-
not be shWed to the students. Reading the Regulations as a whole, it cannot
be doubted that the same are only framed for moral, persuasive and demo-
c cratic reasons so as to involve the students and to elicit their views, sugges-
tions and ensure their participation in mutual exercise of co-operation. Regu-
lations 54, 76, 80, 82, 88, 92, 106, 107 and 109 exhibit the control of the
University in the matter of running of the cafeteria. A residential University
having a canteen facility and the inmates of the hostel not being permitted
to have food from outside cannot possibly be said to be a mere welfare serv-
D
ice to the students. It is a requirement of the Regulations framed under the
Act and thus having statutory sanction and foree. The Regulations pertain-
ing to the hostel accommodation and the supplies of food do not warrant
any other conclusion than to treat it as an essential requirement so far as the
inmates of the hostel are concerned. The involvement of the Vice-Chancel-
E lor, the Warden and the Food Managers who admittedly all belong to the
University as employees thereof cannot negate the cry of the labour force
asking for a parity in their scale of pay. Regularisation will undoubtedly
bring forth a parity with the other employees of the University. The re-
quirement of the number of employees also cannot be brushed aside. More
than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food to the
F
inmates of the hostels - there are altogether 14 hostels and the inmates have
to depend on the Cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, as a
..
matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria - it is a requirement of the
Regulation. The Regulations lead to unmistakable conclusion that the em-
ployees of the Cafeteria cannot but be termed to be the employees of the
G University. [399-E-H; 396-G-H; 397-A-C]
Parimal Chandra Radha & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India
& Ors., J.T. (1995) 3 SC 288, relied on.
All India Railway Institute Employees Association v. Union of India,
H [1990] 2 sec 549, distinguished.
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY v. STATE 393
2. The continuing of the Cafeteria employees to remain half-fed and A
half-clad is not consistent with the socialism conceived by the founding fa-
thers of the Constitution. The deprivation of the weaker section has contin-
ued for long but time has now come to cry a halt and it is for the law Courts
to rise up to the occasion and grant relief to a seeker of a just cause and just
grievance. Economic justice is not a mere legal jargon but in the new millen- B
nium, it is an obligation for all to confer this economic justice to a seeker. If
society is to remain, social justice is the order and economic justice is the
rule of the day. A narrow pedantic approach to statutory documents no
longer survives. The principle of corporate jurisprudence is now being im-
bibed by industrial jurisprudence; the law thus is not in a state of fluidity
since the situation is more or less settled. Widest possible amplitude shall C
have to be offered in the matter of interpretation of statutory documents
under industrial jurisprudence. [400-8; D-F]
D.S. Nakara's case [1983) 1 SCC 305 Secretary, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh &
Ors. etc. etc., [1999] 3 SCC 601, referred to.
D
3. Pragmatism does not necessarily be deprivation of the legitimate
claims of the weaker sections of the society. The University is directed to
• regularise the services of the employees in terms of the award passed by
the Labour Court by 31st August, 2000 so as to entitle the employees of the
Cafeteria to obtain the monthly wages at par with the other employees of E
the University, as directed by the Labour court. The arrears of salary, if
there be any payable, as per the said directions, as confirmed by the High
Court be paid to the canteen staff concerned in 12 equal monthly instal-
ments along with the regularised salary. [403-D;]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13087 of 1996. F
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.96 of the Allahabad High Court
in C.M.W.P. No. 7044 of 1996.
WITH
G
Civil Appeal No. 13089 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.96 of the Allahabad High Court
in C.M.W.P. No. 7083 of 1996.
R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Parag Tripathi, Arvind Verma, H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Prashant Kumar, Sunil Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Nasser Kabir fo~ the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BANERJEE, J. Redressal of grievances of the Cafeteria workers in
B Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Nanital by
reason of an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, Uttar
Pradesh and subsequent confirmation thereof by the High Court prompted the
University to move this Court in Appeal against the same.
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology established under
c U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958 happens to be a residential University
having about 14 hostels to provide accommodation to the students and a
Cafeteria to provide food services to the residents of the hostels and others.
There are about 170 employees working in these Cafeterias and these are the
employees who claim regularisation of the services as regular employees of the
D University which, however, stands negated by the University authority. The
records depict that by reason of refusal to accept such a claim, the disputes were
referred under two separate References in terms of Section 4(k) of the Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act in November 1991 which were registered as
Reference No.141 of 1991 and 142 of 1991. The Labour Court upon accept-
ance of the claim of the employees in no uncertain terms found the entitlement
E
of the employees of Cafeteria and declared the latter to be the regular employ-
ees of the University from the date of the award and held entitled to receive
the same salary and other benefits as the other regular employees of the
University. The University, however, being aggrieved by the award moved two
Writ Petitions by way of challenges to the two awards under Article 226 of the
F Constitution. The High Court also on a detailed scrutiny of the Regulations and
other materials on record dismissed the Writ Petitions with an observation that
the impugned award of the Labour Court are perfectly justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case and do not suffer from any error of law. It is this order
which is under challenge in this Appeal being Civil Appeal Nos.13087of1996
G and 13089 of 1996 (G.B. Pant University of Agriculture am! Technology,
Nainital v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others).
There cannot possibly be any doubt that socialistic concept of the society
as laid down in Part III and IV of the Constitution ought to be implemented
in the true spirit of the Constitution. Decisions are there of this Court galore
H wherein this Court on more occasions than one stated that democratic socialism
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY v. STATE [BANERJEE. J.] 395
aims to end poverty, ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunity. In D.S. A
Nakara 's case ( 1983 1 SCC 305, as also lately in Secretary, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh
& Ors. etc. etc., [1999] 3 SCC 601), the same has been well pronounced and
we need not dilate on that score any further.
Mr. Trivedi, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing in sup-
port of the Appeals rather strongly contended that the High Court has totally B
misconstrued the Regulations framed under the Statute pertaining to the Hostel
and Cafeteria (Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations under U.P.Agriculture Univer-
sity Act, 1958) and rather after a longish narration of the Regulations con-
tended that it is not the University which has any control over the employees
of the Cafeteria but the Food Committee which has specific role in the matter c
of management and control of the Cafeteria and since there exists no evidence
whatsoever on record that the employees working in the Cafeteria were ap-
pointed by the University in accordance wi:h the provisions contained in the
Act or the statute framed thereunder, question of there being any master -
servant relationship would not arise. It is in this context also it has been
contended by Mr. Additional Solicitor that there is no budgetary allocation D
provided in the University Budget to meet the expenses on account of the
salaries of the Cafoteria employees and as such, question of the Cafeteria
employees being termed to be the employees of the University would not arise.
Strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in All India Railway
Institute Employees Association v. Union of India, [1990] 2 SCC 549, wherein E
this Court observed:
"12. By their very nature further the services of the Institutes/Clubs arc
availed of beyond working hours only. It is common knowledge that
not all members of the railway staff avail of them. One has to be a
member to do so by paying fees. The membership is also optional. That F
is why most of t:1e staff employed in the Institutes/Clubs is part time.
As has been stated by the respondents, out of about 1741 employees
engaged in 499 Institutes and 332 Clubs nearly half are part time
employees. The services rendered by the employees are not of a
uniform nature. They are engaged for different services with different G
service conditions according to the requirement. The Institutes/Clubs
further do not engage in uniform activities, the activities conducted by
them varying depending upon the infrastructure and the facilities
available at the respective places.
13. What is more important as far as the issue involved in this petition H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A is concerned, is that the provisions of the Institutes/Clubs is not
mandatory. They are established as a part of the welfare measure for
the railway staff and the kind of activities they conduct depend, among
other things, on the funds available to them. The activities have to be
tailored to the budgets since by their very nature the funds are not only
limited but keep on fluctuating. If the costs of the activities go beyond
B
the means, they have to be curtailed. So also, while starting a new
activity, it is necessary to take into account its financial implications
and the capacity of the Institute/Club to raise the necessary funds. The
only varying component of the funds is the membership fee which is
uncertain."
c
The facts of the matter under consideration are rather a pointer to the
material difference between the canteens run in the Railways Establishment
and that of the Railway Institute and Clubs. This Court on a very poignant note
observed that canteen services are no longer looked upon as a mere welfare
activity but as an essential requirement where sizeable number of employees
D work, this Court went on to record that the same, however, cannot be said to
be of Institutes and Clubs.
While the Appellants' contention is, as noticed above, the Respondents
contended that under the provisions of the Act and Statute, it is obligatory on
E the students to reside in hostel and avail of food services and there being an
obligation to provide food services to the inmates of the hostel, the Cafeteria
is maintained and the obligations of the University cannot be run down. Mr.
Gupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.3 strenuously
contended that there is per sea statutory and legal obligation and the University
authorities are under a duty to maintain residential accommodation,
F promote the health and welfare of the students, make housing and
messing arrangement and the existence of Cafeteria together with its
staff members cannot but be a part of such accommodation and arrangements.
Strong reliance has also been placed on the Regulations for their true purport,
scope and effect.
G We find substance in the submission of Mr. Gupta. A perusal of the
Regulations as framed under the statute (U .P. Agricultural University Act)
unmistakably depict that the twin conventional tests of implicit obligation and
factors of over all control and supervision by the University stands satisfied and
the legal responsibility cannot be shifted to the students as is sought to be
H contended.
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE ANO TECHNOLOGY v. STATE [BANERJEE,!.] 397
Reliance by Mr. Trivedi on to the Regulations 48, 49, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, A
78, 86,92 and 93 though apparently may have some relevance pertaining to the
issue, but reading the Regulations as a whole, it cannot be doubted that the
same are only framed for moral, persuasive and democratic reasons so as to
involve the students and to elicit their views, suggestions and ensure their
participation in mutual exercise of co-operation. We, however, feel it expedient
B
to quote herein below a few of the Regulations which would unmistakably
depict total control of the University in the matter of running and maintenance
of the Cafeteria and the same being as below:
54. It shall be compulsory for each student residing in a hostel to. join
the Cafeteria of that hostel unless otherwise permitted by the Chief c
Warden of the hostel on the request of the guardian of the student, and
the recommendation of the Warden of that hostel to take food with his
guardian. In that event the Chief Warden shall inform all concerned
officers of the University, for example, Comptroller, Dean Student
Welfare, Hostel Warden, etc.
D
76. The Comptroller of the University shall operate the "G.B.P.U.A.
Food Services Account", issue cheques, maintain the cash book and
classified accounts (unitwise/head wise) of income and expenditure as
well as students ledgers in his office like other accounts of the Univer-
sity. In addition to arranging timely payment of the Cafeteria bills duly E
authorised by the Warden and ensuring recovery of all Cafoteria dues
from the students and staff members concerned the Comptroller shall
be responsible for getting the Cafeteria accounts audited Cent- Percent
regularly.
F
80. The accounts Clerk-Cum-Store Keeper of the hostel Cafeteria shall
be responsible for the proper and up-to-date maintenance of the Caf-
eteria stores, Stores records and account books including daily menu
book, cash book, consumable stock book, daily preparation and sales
register, cash credit and coupon transaction register, Stores day book
(Roznamcha) indents, challans, bill register, daily sales sheets, Cash G
memo book bill book etc. under the direct supervision, control and
guidance of the Hostel Manager. His functions and duties shall be as
follows:
H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A 82. The other Cafeteria staff including tea man, Head-Cook, Bearers,
etc. shall work in accordance with the instructions of the Hostel
Manager/Warden. The duties of these staff members shall be defined/
P.rescribed by the Warden of the Hostel.
88. The accounts of the Warden's Office (bills and vouchers) shall be
B taken by the Hostel Manager to the Office of the Comptroller for
scrutiny and checking.
92. The entire Cafeteria staff shall work under the direct supervision
of the Warden/Asst!. Warden in accordance with the advise of the Food
Committee and under the administrative control of the Chief Warden.
c All cases of appointments, termination of service and other punish-
ments and promotions, rewards etc. shall be dealt with by the Chief
Warden in consultation with the Warden and the Food Committee.
93. (i) All the appointment of Cafeteria staff would be made by the
D Food Committee of the hostel with the approval of the Chief
Warden.
(ii) The leave, annual increments, uniform, travelling allowance etc.
to the Cafeteria staff shall be governed in accordance with the
policies laid down by the Central Food Committee.
E
106. (i) The bills/vouchers/imprest/temporary advance adjustment ac-
counts and monthly food accounts duly passed by the respective Food
Secretary/Chairman, Food Committee to their entire satisfaction and
entered in the Food Provision Control Registrar shall be sent to Comp-
troller directly for the scrutiny and payment/adjustment/recovery of
F dues expeditiously. The Wardens. Hostel Managers and the respective
Food Secretaries will be fully responsible for making stock entries of
all purchases made in respect of their Hostels. The payment will be
made only if a certificate in the following form is given on the bill
(rubber stamp for which could be got made for convenience).
G
"Certified that the goods as per specification have been received
and entered in the stock books."
(ii) The Warden shall have full financial and administrative control of
their Hostel Cafeteria funds and be responsible for up-to-date mainte-
H nance of accounts books and submission of bills/vouchers/adjustment
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 399
accounts, the preparation of monthly food accounts and submission of A
monthly recovery lists accurately within the time and according to the
procedure prescribed in the Hostel Cafeteria Regulations. The War-
dens/Hostel Managers/Food Secretary concerned will be fully respon-
sible for checking of rates charged in the bills and payments will be
authorised on the basis of the Certification.
B
107. (i) Similarly, the preparation of vouchers for adjustment account
of temporary advances and re-coupment of the permanent advance
shall be done by the Accounts Clerk-Cum-Store Keeper/Hostel Man-
ager which shall be checked and signed by the food Secretary, Warden
expeditiously and the Warden shall ensure that no cash is drawn and
retained by the Hostel Cafeteria when it is not required for its imme-
c
diate expenditure.
109. The Hostel Cafeteria's Accounts Clerk cum Store-Keeper shall be
responsible to Warden/Chief Warden on the one hand and on the other D
be also responsible to the Comptroller for correctness of the Cafeteria
accounts.
The detailed analysis as above has been introduced in this judgment so
as to exhibit the control of the University in the matter of running of the
Cafeteria. As noticed above, a residential University having a canteen facility E
and the inmates of the hostel not being permitted to have food from outside
cannot possibly be said to be a mere welfare service to the students. It is a
requirement of the Regulations framed under the Act and thus having statutory
sanction and force - the issue thus comes up for consideration as to whether
it is a mere ancillary benefit conferred on to the inmates of the hostel or an F
essential requirement. The Regulations pertaining to the hostel accommodation
and the supplies of food do not warrant any other conclusion than to treat it
as an essential requirement so far as the inmates of the hostel are concerned.
The involvement of the Vice-Chancellor, the Warden and the Food Managers
who admittedly all belong to the University as employees thereof cannot negate
the cry of the labour force asking for a parity in their scale of pay. Regulari- G
sation will undoubtedly bring forth a parity with the other employees of the
University. The requirement of the number of employees also cannot be brushed
aside. More than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food
to the inmates of the hostels - there are altogether 14 hostels and the inmates
have to depend on to the Cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A as a matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria - it is a requirement of the
Regulation.
Admittedly, Cafeteria employees need succour for livelihood - would
they continue to remain half fed and half clad as long as they live - is this the
society that we feel proud of: Is this the guarantee provided by the founding
B fathers of our Constitution or is this the concept of socialism which they
conceived? None of the answers can possibly be in the affirmative. The situ-
ation is rather awesome and deplorable - the University by compulsion directs
students to be residents of hostel with a definite ban on having food from
outside agencies excepting under special circumstances and the provider of
C food, namely the staff of the Cafeteria ought not to be treated as an employee
of the University - whose employees they are if we may ask and we think it
would not be impertinent on our part to ask the same - is it the consumer of
food? Since when the consumer of food becomes the employer? These are the
questions which remain unanswered: The society shall have to thrive: The
society shall have to prosper and this prosperity can only come in the event of
D there being a wider vision for total social good and benefit: It is not bestowing
any favour to anybody but it is a mandatory obligation to see that the society
thrives. The deprivation of the weaker section we had for long but time has now
come to cry halt and it is for the law courts to rise up to the occasion and grant
relief to a seeker of a just cause and just grievance. Economic justice is nm a
E mere legal jargon but in the new millenium, it is the obligation for all to confer
this economic justice to a seeker: Society is to remain, social justice is the order
and economic justice is the rule of the day. Narrow pedantic approach to
statutory documents no longer survives. The principle of corporate jurispru-
dence is now being imbibed on to industrial jurisprudence and there is a long
catena of cases in regard thereto - the law thus is not in a state of fluidity since
F the situation is more or less setiled. As regards interpretation widest possible
amplitude shall have to be offered in the matter of interpretation of statutory
documents under industrial jurisprudence. The draconian concept is no longer
available. Justice - social and economic, as noticed above ought to be made
available with utmost expedition so that the socialistic pattern of the society
G as dreamt of by the founding fathers can thrive and have its foundation so that
the future generation do not live in the dark and cry for social and economic
justice.
We can in this context, usefully record the observations of this Court in
Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.,
H J.T. (1995) 3 SC 288, wherein this Court in paragraph 31 of the Report
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 401
observed: A
"31. The facts on record on the other hand, show in unmistakable terins
that canteen services have been provided to the employees of the
Corporation for a long time and it is the Corporation which has been
from time to time, taking steps to provide the said services. The
canteen committees, the cooperative society of the employees and the B
contractors have only been acting for and on behalf of the Corporation
as its agencies to provide the said services. The Corporation has been
taking active interest even in organising the canteen committees. It is
further the Corporation which has been appointing the contractors to
run the canteens and entering into agreements with them for the c
purpose. The terms of the contract further show that they are in the
nature of directions to the contractor about the manner in which the
canteen should be run and the canteen services should be rendered to
the employees. Both the appointment of the contractor and the tenure
of the contract is as per the stipulations made by the Corporation in the
agreement. Even the prices of the items served, the place where they D
should be cooked, the hours during which and the place where they
should be served, are dictated by the Corporation. The Corporation has
also reserved the right to modify the terms of the contract unilaterally
and the contractor has no say in the matter. Further, the records shows
that almost all the workers of the canteen like the appellants have been E
working in the canteen coptinuously for a long time whatever the
mechanism employed by the Corporation to supervise and control the
working of the canteen. Although the supervising and managing body
of the canteen has changed hands from time lo time, the workers have
remained constant. This is apart from the fact that the infrastructure for
F
running the canteen, viz, the premises, furniture, electricity, water etc.
is supplied by the Corporation to the managing agency for running the
canteen. Further, it cannot be disputed that the canteen service is
essential for the efficient working of the employees and of the offices
of the Corporation. In fact, by controlling the hours during which the
counter and floor service will be made available to the employees by G
the canteen, the Corporation has also tried to avoid the waste of time
which would otherwise be the result if the employees· have to go
outside the offices in search of such services. The service is available
to all the employees in the premises of the office itself and c;ontinu-
ously since inception of the Corporation, as pointed out earlier. The
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A employees of the Corporation have all along been making the com-
plaints about the poor or inadequate service rendered by the canteen
to them, only to the Corporation and the Corporation has been taking
steps to remedy the defects in the canteen service. Further, whenever
there was a temporary breakdown in the canteen service, on account
of the agitation or of strike by the canteen workers, it is the Corporation
B which has been taking active interest in getting the dispute resolved
and the canteen workers have also looked upon the Corporation as
their real employer and joined it as a party to the industrial dispute
raised by them. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the
canteen has become a part of the establishment of the Corporation. The
c canteen committees, the cooperative society of the employees and the
contractors engaged from time to time are in reality the agencies of the
Corporation and are, only a veil between the Corporation and the
canteen workers. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the canteen workers are in fact the employees of the
D Corporation."
The Regulations if read on the lines as noticed hereinbefore lead to
unmistakable conclusion that the employees of the Cafeteria cannot but be
termed to be the employees of the University.
E It is on this score the High Court in the judgment impugned observed
as below:
"The learned counsel also assailed the findings of the Labour Court on
the question of relationship of master and servant. I have perused the
findings and in my opinion this contention is also not correct. The
F Labour Court has referred to various documents, appointment letters,
transfer orders which clearly demonstrate the control of the University
over the Cafeteria staff. The documents have been fully corroborated
by oral evidence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the University
to controvert this documentary and oral evidence. In these facts and
circumstances, it cannot be said that the findings suffer from any error
G of law. The relationship of employer and the employees between the
University and the Cafeteria staff is established from the provisions
contained in the Act, the Statutes and the Regulations framed thereun-
der and also by the documentary and oral evidence filed before the
Labour Court. The claim raised by the members of the Cafeteria staff
H in the two cases has rightly been accepted. The impugned awards of
G.B. PANT UtHVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 403
the Labour Court are perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances A
of the case and do not suffer from any error of law."
In a faint attempt Mr. Trivedi wanted to introduce a pragmatic approach
to the problem and contended that the law Courts should consider the matter
from different angles applying practical experience and factual contexts before
arriving at the solution. It has been contended that the financial implications B
would be rather much too heavy on the University to be borne by it and unless
State assistance is made available, it would a well neigh impossibility to meet
the burden, we are, however, unable to record our concurrence thereto. Prag-
matism does not necessarily be deprivation of the legitimate claims of the
weaker sections of the society. The submission, if we may say with respect, is C
totally misplaced and does not warrant any further discussion thereon.
In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these two appeals.
The appeals are dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. The University is
directed to regularise the services of the employees in terms of the award
passed by the Labonr Court by 3 lst August, 2000 so as to entitle the employees D
of the Cafeteria to obtain the monthly wages at par with the other employees
of the University, as directed by the labour Court. The arrears of salary, if there
be any payable, as per the said directions, as confirmed by the High Court, be
paid to the canteen staff concerned by 12 equal monthly instalments alongwith
the regularised salary. E
The learned additional Solicitor General submitted that once the Cafete-
ria staff employees are held to be direct employees of the University, then the
University, in exercise of its entrepreneurial or managerial functions, can
constitute a separate cadre of Cafeteria staff employees with suitable hierarchy
of posts in the said cadre with separate pay scales as would be conunensurate F
with the other perquisites and facilities available to all such staff under the
relevant regulations framed by the University. We arc not concerned with this
aspect of the matter in the present proceedings, as such we ar" not expressing
any opinion thereon excepting recording that the parties would be at liberty to
take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
G
The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
B.S. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search