MISHRA DHATU NIGAM LIMITED Vs. M VENKATAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 10722 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, in turn came to be filed by a group of workers seeking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellant in not absorbing them as its regular employee and not paying the pay and other benefits on par with the regular employees of the appellant-company is illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the appellant-company : (a) to absorb the workers as its regular employees; (b) to prescribe the appropriate scale of pay and other service conditions for them from the date of their initial appointment together with arrears of salary. A Division Bench of the High Court by a common order dated 24-1-97 in this and two other writ petitions passed the following order :

(2.) Hence, this appeal. Civil Appeal No. 3159 of 1997 :

(3.) The above appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P. No. 10967 of 1988, who was the appellant in W.A. No. 1493 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the Writ Petition, the Canteen Employees Union of B.H.P.V., and a worker in the canteen, who was also the General Secretary of the Union at that time, prayed for an appropriate direction to declare the action of the appellant in not regularising the services of the workers in the canteen and paying them wages on par with other permanent workers of the appellant and withdrawing B.H.P.V. dispensary facilities to them, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and direct the appellant to accord those reliefs. A learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by following an earlier decision of the same Court dated 30-10-95 rendered in W. P. No. 5682 of 1992 :VST Industries Ltd. vs. VST Industries Workers Union and another (1996 (1) ALD 97). A review filed thereon in W.M.P. No. 19114 of 1996 having also been rejected on 1-10-1996, W.A. 1493 of 1996 came to be filed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court, adverted to the earlier decisions of the Division Bench rendered in W.A. Nos. 430 and 385 of 1996 and in the light of the principles laid down therein, not only confirmed the view taken by the learned single Judge but also held that in the teeth of Rules 65 to 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950, it requires to be affirmed that the appellant has a statutory duty to provide a canteen for the workmen and consequently dismissed the appeal, resulting in the filing of the above appeal. Civil Appeal No. 6991 of 1997 :