Chennai Port Trust vs The Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association and Ors.

Chennai Port Trust ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association And Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2018.04.27 order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the Single Judge 16:11:26 IST Reason: 1 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 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.

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

2 running since 1964. This canteen has 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.

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 in the Canteen to be the regular

employees of the Chennai Port Trust and

accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary

3 benefits at par with the regular employees of the

Chennai Port Trust.

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 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.

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

4 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 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 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 intra court appeal before the

Division Bench in the High Court. By impugned

5 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 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.

12. In our considered view, the Writ Court (Single

Judge) and the 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

6 the case at hand and found great 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 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 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 functioning of the canteen. Therefore, apart from a general

7 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 :

(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 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.

(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.

(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 rent free.

8 (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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(xiii) It is a matter of common knowledge that at least as 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,

9 the canteen is a must not only for employees, but also for the entire staff at various 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.

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.

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.

(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.

(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

10 contract 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.

(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 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 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) 11

16. Mere perusal of the decision rendered in the

case of Indian 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.

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.

18. In other words, if on the undisputed facts, this

Court has granted benefit to the canteen workers in

12 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 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.

20. We are, however, not impressed by the

submission of the 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.

13

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 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 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

14 Indian Petrochemicals (supra), we need not

entertain his submissions.

24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find

no merit in the appeal, which fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

………...................................J. [R. K. AGRAWAL]

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi;

April 27, 2018

15