SARASPUR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAMANLAL CHIMANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal by special leave from an Order of the Industrial Court, Gujarat which reversed an order made by the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Ramanlal Chimanlal and others are the workers of a canteen which is run by the Saraspur Mills Canteen Co-operative Society Limited, Ahmedabad (hereinafter called the co-operative society). The appellant company is responsible for maintaining the canteen under the provisions of sec. 46 of the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder. The appellant handed over to the co-operative society the task of running the canteen. The workers mentioned above filed an application before the 2nd Labour Court at Ahmedabad under sec. 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act), complaining that the appellant was not paying them the wages and dearness allowances as per the directions contained in the Award of the Bombay Industrial Court made in Reference No. 18 of 1947 and supplementary Award given in certain miscellaneous applications of 1956 and 1962 respectively relating to additional wages sanctioned by the said Award. It was alleged by the applicants in support of their claim that by virtue of certain amendments made in the Act in the definition of the word "employer" they became workers of the appellant, which was bound to pay wages and dearness allowances settled by the aforesaid Award and the supplementary Awards referred to. The case of the workmen was that the appellant was running the canteen only because it was under an obligation to do so under the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder. Thus the running of the canteen was an ordinary part of the undertaking of the appellant. It was admitted that the appellant did not run the canteen itself but handed over the premises to the co-operative society to run the canteen for the use and welfare of the mill's employees and discharge its legal obligations.

(3.) The appellant denied the allegations of the workmen that they were its employees. It was claimed that the aforesaid workers had never been employed either by the appellant or by its agent or contractor. The workers in fact were stated to have been employed by the licencee of the appellant and, therefore, there was no question of the wage settlements or Awards being binding on the appellant. The 2nd Labour Court by its Order dated 14th April, 1966 dismissed the claim of the workmen, who filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, which was allowed by its order dated 26th March, 1968. The Industrial Court held that the employees of the co-operative society, who were working in the canteen, were employees of the appellant and, their wages and dearness allowance etc., were payable in accordance with the Awards mentioned before. The direction was made that the appellant should pay the difference in wages and dearness allowance in accordance with those Awards.