RAMESH SAXENA Vs. CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR ITPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 34 petitioners employed in the canteen for the staff / employees of the respondent India Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO), by this writ petition seek a direction for being treated as the departmental employees of ITPO, with the same conditions of service as applicable to the other employees of ITPO and also claim an order restraining ITPO from taking any steps for retrenching the petitioners and/or for appointing a private contractor for running the said canteen. This court on 23rd July, 1993 issued notice of the writ petition and the application for interim relief to the ITPO. On the next date i.e., 3rd August, 1993 the counsel for ITPO made a statement that no precipitative action will be taken till the next date. The said order was continued. On 6th September, 1993 Rule was issued in the writ petition. It was directed that the petitioners will continue to get their salary which they were entitled to get as per their appointment, during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioners filed CM.No.7353/1994 also for interim direction to the ITPO to pay to the petitioners the various allowances like overtime allowance, arrears, award, bonus, medical allowances, lunch subsidy and arrears of revision of pay scales, as being paid to the other employees of the ITPO. This court vide order dated 1st December, 1994 clarified that the order dated 6th September, 1993 (supra) entitled the petitioners to get all what they were to get as per their appointment letters and finding that the petitioners were earlier being treated at par with the employee of ITPO and were getting the allowances claimed, were held entitled to the payment of the said allowances also under the interim order dated 6th September, 1993. It may also be mentioned that the SLP preferred by ITPO to the Supreme Court against the interim order was dismissed.

(2.) The question whether employees of/in departmental canteens are employees of the department/establishment or not has been the subject matter of several judgments of the Apex Court. Mention may be made of the following and of which several have been cited by the senior counsel for the petitioners also i. The Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ramanlal Chimanlal (1974) 3 SCC 66. ii. M.M.R. Khan Vs.Union of India 1990 Supp (l) SCC 191. iii. Parimal Chandra Raha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1995 Supp (2) SCC 611. iv. The Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Their Workmen (1996) 3 SCC 267 v. Secretary HSEB Vs. Suresh (1999) 3 SCC 601. vi. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Vs. Shramik Sena (1999) 6 SCC 439. vii. Indian Overseas Bank Vs. IOB Staff Canteen Workers Union 2000 (4) SCC 245. viii. Hari Shanker Sharma v. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation (2002) 1 SCC 337. ix. Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd. v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547. x. Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (2005) 5 SCC 51. W.P.(C)3420/1993 Page 4 of 19 xi. State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association (2006) 1 SCC 567. xii. Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs. Association of Engineering Workers (2008) 13 SCC 441.

(3.) From the aforesaid judgments qua departmental canteens, whether statutory or otherwise, two streams can be discerned. One stream holds the workmen/employees of the said canteen to be the employees of the establishment and the other stream of judgments has refused to recognize the workmen/employees of the canteen as employees of the establishment. I have analyzed the judgments in both the streams to crystallize as to what prevailed with the Court in holding one way or the other.