V K SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have sought for a direction to respondent No.2, namely - Indian Institute of Technology (in short, described as IIT) to absorb the petitioners as their permanent employees with all consequential benefits and also to prescribe appropriate service conditions to all classes of Canteen workers from Manager to Cleaners.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that the petitioners have been working in the IIT Staff Canteen for a period of 5-16 years in various capacities. According to the petitioners the said Canteen has been running continuously since 1981 without any interruption and has become an essential and inseparable part of the Indian Institute of Technology. It is contended that the said Canteen was run on a Cooperative basis for a period of 10 years and subsequently the said society was dissolved and the present staff canteen was started by the IIT for the benefit of the employees, which is being run by a Managing Committee constituted by the Institute of Technology and therefore, according to the petitioners they are to be absorbed as the regular employees of the Indian Institute of Technology and hence the present petition.

(3.) The respondents No.2 & 3 have filed their counter affidavit contending inter alia that the petitioners cannot be declared as the employees of the Institute. It is stated that the petitioners are working in the canteen which provides canteen facilities to class III and Class IV employees of the Institute and that the Institute is neither the appointing authority nor are the petitioners under its control and supervision of the Institute and that there exists no relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the Institute. It was stated that the petitioners were engaged by the Managing Committee of the Canteen which is an independent body and is not a part of the Institute itself. It was stated that the said canteen is not a statutory canteen and was provided as a welfare measure to the employees. It was further contended that the petitioners were not appointed by the Institute pursuant to any advertisement for selection. Categorical assertion is made that the petitioners were appointed not through any selection process and as such there exists no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the Institute. It is contended that the Institute does not supervise or control the working of the canteen or the supply of eatables to the employees and that the employees of the Institute are not under any obligation to purchase eatables from the canteen and that it has no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct the employees of the canteen to do a particular work.