ELANGOVAN M Vs. MADRAS REFINERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of learned Judge in W. P. No. 10628 of 1988, dated September 30, 1997. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein and the point that arises in the appeal is whether the appellants who are employees in the statutory canteen run by the first respondent in the a ppeal are employees of the first respondent for all purposes.

(2.) THE appellants numbering 103 persons have filed the writ petition for a writ of declaration declaring that the appellants are the workmen of the respondents 1 and 2 and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise their services and absorb them and also for the issue of further and other orders.

(3.) THE case of the appellants, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the first respondent, Madras Refineries i Ltd. , is a factory within the meaning of the factories Act, 1948, and in the said factory, more than 2000 workmen are employed on three shift basis and the factory runs round the clock. There is no dispute that the Factories Act applies to the first respondent company and the employer is statutorily bound to run a canteen for its workmen on no-profit-no-loss basis. According to the appellants, the canteen is integral both functionally and statutorily to the industrial process carried on by the factory and in the canteen, the appellants have been employed through the third respondent, a private limited company. It is also stated that the respondents 1 and 2 have no valid licence or registration to employ 103 persons as contract labourers, and the appellants are not contract labourers and they ought to have been absorbed by the respondents 1 and 2 as permanent labourers. It is their case that the appellants have put in a continuous service for years together according to the service particulars found in the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition and the lowest category of unskilled labour in the factory of the respondents 1 and 2 is known as handyman who is paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month and the person doing semi-skilled and manual work gets a monthly pay of Rs. 300. The appellants are entitled to the pay of lowest category of permanent employees. It is stated that the appellants are employed through an intermediary solely with a motive of exploiting them and denying them just conditions of service including permanent status. Hence, the writ petition has been filed to protect the livelihood of the appellants with the prayer for declaration as stated earlier. The appellants, during the pendency of the writ petition, also sought for an interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from terminating them from service.