COMINCO BINANI ZINC LTD Vs. PAPPACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P3 award passed by the third respondent, Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey in I. D. No. 23 of 1982. The petitioner company is having more than 250 workers on its rolls. As per S.46 of the Factories . Act and the Rules framed thereunder the Company has to provide and maintain a canteen for its employees. The company has provided all facilities for running a canteen. The right to conduct the canteen was being given on contract to others from time to time. First respondent was a contractor engaged for the said purpose and he was running the canteen upto 18-4-1978. From 19-4-1978 to 28-6-1978 the workers of the Company themselves were running the canteen. From 29-6-1978 a new contractor took up the responsibility of running the same. At no point of time had the company run the canteen by itself. The contractors who took up the responsibility of running the canteen were engaging their-own workmen and they were being paid by the contractors. While so, some disputes arose between the first respondent and the workers engaged in the canteen regarding the payment of bonus and arrears of wages for a short period. Consequent on those disputes the following issues were referred to the Industrial Tribunal for its decision by the Government as per G. O. (Rt) No. 1109/79/L; H dated 4-8-1979:

(2.) The contention raised by the petitioner is that the canteen was run by contractors like the first respondent, that the employees of the canteen were engaged by those contractors, that they are never considered as employees of the petitioner and that the petitioner is not liable to pay any-thing other than the actual wages due to the workmen if it is found that the contractors failed to give wages to their employees. It is the specific case advanced by the petitioner that no claim of bonus or gratuity can be made against them under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act or under any other legislation.

(3.) Ext. P1 is a copy of the statement of claim submitted by the union before the Tribunal. In paragraph-3 of that statement it is specifically averred that the service conditions of the employees working in the canteen were regulated by the settlements entered into between the concerned contractors and the union in the presence of Conciliation Officers. This statement of the union will go to show that the petitioner had nothing to do with the settlements which regulated the conditions of service of the employees engaged in the canteen. As per S.46 of the Factories Act, the petitioner should provide and maintain a canteen for the use of its workers. In discharge of this obligation they have provided building, utensils, electrical fittings etc. for running the canteen. The actual responsibility of running the canteen was never taken by the petitioner. For the said purpose they engaged contractors. The contractors who were running the canteen employed their workmen. Can those workmen be considered as employees of the petitioner The liabilities of the petitioner to discharge the obligations to the employees engaged in the canteen depend on the answer to this question.