STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case an order dated May 1, 2001 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner being Annexure 'P-12' to the petition has since been challenged.

(2.) Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the finding that the canteen employees, were the employees of the bank cannot be entertained by the Provident Fund Commissioner, inasmuch as it is not the forum where such a disputed question of fact can be determined. According to him, the canteen employees are not the employees of the bank since the bank does neither engage them nor has any ultimate control over their employment which is at the hands of the Canteen Committee. It is only by way of a welfare measure the bank reimburses the expenses incurred by the Canteen Committee and makes certain facilities available for such welfare of the employees of the bank. He also contends relying on several decisions of the Apex Court that the canteen employees are not the employees of the employer and that the bank is not the principal employer of such employees.

(3.) The learned counsel for the workmen submits that an appeal having been provided under Section 7(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Writ Court should not exercise its jurisdiction and the writ-petition should be dismissed. According to him, this requires the determination of finding of fact which this Court cannot undertake in exercise of writ jurisdiction.