advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

whether the existing canteen at Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway i.e., the subject Canteen, is located in a ‘Factory’ within the meaning of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948; and consequently, whether the services of the staff employed in the subject Canteen ought to be regularized. - Therefore, in the light of the settled principle enunciated hereinabove, we hold that the subject Canteen is a ‘Statutory Canteen’ under the Factories Act, 1948 and that the learned Single Judge had arrived at the correct conclusion. In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in taking a contrary view. We, therefore, allow these Appeals. We set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court, and direct the Respondents to treat the subject Canteen at Moradabad as a Statutory Canteen either under Section 46 of the Act or the relevant clauses of the Indian Railway Establishment Management. However, so far as the Appellants are concerned, we find it difficult to condone or ignore the fact that they were not appointed as per the regular recruitment procedure. To pass an order regularizing the services of all workers employed therein would necessarily imply ratification of appointments given outside the Constitutional scheme. We, therefore, direct the Respondents to consider regularizing the services of the Appellants presently serving as canteen workers in consonance with the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806 and take requisite action within six months of the receipt of this Judgment. Further, as and when the subject posts fall vacant the Respondents shall be bound to fill the posts by a regular process of selection. The Appellants in the present case shall be allowed to compete in the regular recruitment and the Respondents shall grant to them appropriate age relaxation as well as grant proper weightage for their having worked in the subject Canteen. 19 There cannot be any cavil that the necessity for canteen amenities to be available where more than 250 workmen are engaged, is an essential facet of human or labour rights. Managements and employers are duty bound to provide these basic facilities. 20 Stay granted by this Court on 28.03.2014 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5874-5875  OF 2015
              (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS. 1624-25 OF 2014)




MOHAN SINGH & ORS.                                … APPELLANTS

                                   VERSUS

THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS.       … RESPONDENTS



                               J U D G M E N T





VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.



1     Leave granted.

2     The legal nodus that arise  in  the  present  Appeals  before  us  are
whether the existing canteen at Moradabad Division of the  Northern  Railway
i.e., the subject Canteen, is located in a ‘Factory’ within the  meaning  of
Section 46 of  the  Factories  Act,  1948;  and  consequently,  whether  the
services  of  the  staff  employed  in  the  subject  Canteen  ought  to  be
regularized.  These Appeals have been preferred against the Judgment  passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of New Delhi in LPA No. 19 of  2012,
whereby the Orders passed in Writ Petition  No.  6582  of  2003  and  Review
Petition No. 670 of 2011 have been set aside and it has been held  that  the
subject Canteen is a ‘Non Recognized and Non Statutory’ canteen.

3     We shall briefly narrate the facts leading up to the present lis.  The
Appellants are employed in the  subject  Canteen,  which  has  been  running
within  the  precincts  of  the  Divisional  Railway  Manager   (hereinafter
referred to as “the DRM”), Moradabad since 1940 and  has  been  catering  to
more than 100 employees, (in fact, well over 500) since  its  establishment.
In 1963, the Respondent No. 1, namely the Chairman, Railway Board, issued  a
Circular No. E(W) 63/GN 1-2 dated 09.07.1963 for setting up of  canteens  as
a welfare measure, whenever and wherever the  staff  strength  exceeds  100.
The existing Staff Canteen, i.e. the subject Canteen  continued  to  operate
smoothly, even thereafter. It is the uncontroverted case of  the  Appellants
that when the subject Canteen underwent severe financial losses in 1971,  it
was the Respondent No. 3, i.e.  the  DRM  of  Northern  Railways,  Moradabad
Division, who decided to constitute a  committee  of  three  senior  Railway
Divisional Officers to examine whether the affairs of  the  subject  Canteen
could be taken over by the Railways. It was decided by  the  said  committee
that the affairs of the subject Canteen be revived; and an ad hoc  committee
comprising five Railway Officers, which was to be replaced  later  on  by  a
regular management committee, be appointed to  manage  the  affairs  of  the
said Canteen. It was in these circumstances that  the  subject  Canteen  was
formally taken over by the Respondent Railways with effect from  18.01.1972.
 Subsequently, Respondent No.1 issued Circular No.  E  (W)  83  CN1-8  dated
13.04.1987 laying down that prior approval of the  Railway  Board  would  be
mandatory for setting up of a new canteen as  well  as  for  increasing  the
staff strength of existing canteens. The Appellants assert that the  mandate
laid down in the Circular of 1987 was not applicable to the subject  Canteen
as it was validly operational since 1940, and was also  in  consonance  with
the Circular of 1963.  Ergo, no prior approval  was  required  to  be  taken
from the Railway Board since the subject Canteen was not a new canteen.   It
appears that  thereafter  on  19.09.1996,  Respondent  No.  2,  the  General
Manager of Northern Railways wrote a letter to the Railway Board  requesting
it to accord recognition to the subject  Canteen  in  the  interest  of  the
welfare  of  the  employees.   However,  vide  Order  dated  9.09.2002,  the
Ministry  of  Railways  rejected  this  request  on  the  premise  that   if
recognition were to be granted to the subject Canteen,  the  existing  staff
would nevertheless not be absorbed automatically, and  they  would  have  to
compete with other eligible candidates.  The Ministry  then  ordered  status
quo to be maintained in respect of the subject Canteen.  The  said  proposal
was thereafter  discussed  in  the  Permanent  Negotiating  Machinery  (PNM)
meeting held on 22.12.2003, wherein it was decided that  since  the  Railway
Board had already rejected the proposal for recognition due to  the  changed
priorities of Railways and cutting  down  of  non-planned  expenditure,  the
proposal for  recognition  of  any  canteen  under  the  provisions  of  the
Factories Act, 1948, or the Railway Manual could not be considered.

4     Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants filed a  writ  petition  before  the
Delhi High Court, seeking  directions  to  the  Railways  to  recognize  the
subject Canteen and regularize the services of the PS,  who  were  the  then
Canteen staff,  as  employees  of  Railways.    The  learned  Single  Judge,
relying heavily upon the view of this Court  in  M.M.R.  Khan  v.  Union  of
India (1990) Supp SCC 191, allowed the Writ Petition on 13.01.2011 and  held
that since the subject Canteen at Moradabad has been  operational  for  over
seventy years, by then catering to more  than  900  employees,  and  in  the
absence of any other canteen in the Moradabad Division, the  Railways  could
not be permitted to take advantage of  their  failure  to  comply  with  the
requirements of Section 46 of the Factories Act and treat  this  Canteen  at
Moradabad as a ‘Non-Statutory Canteen’.  Against the Order  of  the  learned
Single Judge, a Review Petition was preferred by the Respondents  which  was
dismissed on 2.12.2011.  The Respondents then filed  an  appeal  contending,
inter  alia,  that  the  subject  Canteen  was  a  ‘Non-Statutory  and  Non-
Recognized’ Canteen and that  it  could  not  be  treated  as  a  ‘Statutory
Canteen’ under the Factories Act,  1948  as  no  manufacturing  process  was
being carried on in the  DRM  Office  at  Moradabad.   In  the  appeal,  the
Division Bench, vide the impugned Judgment dated  16.03.2012,  reversed  the
decision of the learned Single  Judge.   It  held  that  the  provisions  of
Section 46 of the Act would not get  attracted  in  the  instant  case  only
because the number of the persons employed in  the  DRM  Office,  Moradabad,
exceeds two-hundred fifty, unless the concerned establishment squarely  fell
within the definition of ‘Factory’ as defined under Section  2  (m)  of  the
Act. The Division Bench acknowledged that  the  dictum  laid  down  by  this
Court  in  M.M.R.  Khan  has  become  locus  classicus  on  the  subject  of
regularisation of employees of several canteens being run in  the  different
Railway establishments.  All the same, it added that in order to  avail  the
benefit emanating from M.M.R. Khan the Appellants would have  to  prove  the
sine qua non of a ‘Statutory Canteen’, i.e.  that  the  subject  Canteen  is
being run in a premises which is  a  factory  within  the  four  corners  of
Section 46 of the Act.  The Division Bench then took note of Section  46  of
the Act, which enjoins that ‘manufacturing process’  must,  inter  alia,  be
carried on in the premises of a ‘factory’.

5     We shall, first, consider the concomitants  of  a  ‘Non-Statutory  and
Non-Recognised Canteen’, which aspect has been duly cogitated upon  by  this
Court  in  M.M.R.  Khan  where  this  Court   has   adumbrated   the   basic
characteristics of a ‘Non-Recognized and Non-Statutory Canteen’ thus –

 “38. (iii) Non-statutory Non-recognised Canteens:  The  difference  between
the non-statutory recognised and  non-statutory  non-recognised  canteen  is
that these canteens are not started with the approval of the  Railway  Board
as required under  paragraph  2831  of  the  Railway  Establishment  Manual.
Though, they are started in the premises belonging to the railways they  are
so started with the permission of the local officers. They are not  required
to be managed either as per the  provisions  of  the  Railway  Establishment
Manual or the Administrative Instructions (supra). There  is  no  obligation
on the railway administration to provide them with any facilities  including
the furniture, utensils, electricity and water. These canteens  are  further
not entitled to nor are they given any subsidies or loans. They are  run  by
private contractors and there is no continuity either of the contractors  or
the workers engaged by them. More often than not the  workers  go  out  with
the contractors. There is further no  obligation  cast  even  on  the  local
offices to supervise the working of these canteens. No rules whatsoever  are
applicable to the recruitment of the workers and their  service  conditions.
The  canteens  are  run  more  or  less  on  ad-hoc   basis,   the   railway
administration having no control on their working neither is there a  record
of these canteens nor of the contractors who run them who keep on  changing,
much less of the workers engaged in these canteens. In the circumstances  we
are of the view that the workers engaged in these canteens are not  entitled
to claim the status of the railway servants”.

6     It cannot be controverted that the subject Canteen  has  been  running
since 1940 within the precincts of the office of the DRM, Moradabad and  has
been under the direct control and supervision of the  DRM.   The  Management
Committee appointed for administration  of  the  subject  Canteen  comprises
office bearers of the Canteen Management Committee, duly  elected  in  union
elections held from time to time.  Further, no  private  contractor  or  co-
operative society has  ever  been  engaged  for  running  or  operating  the
subject Canteen.  The Appellants contend that the joining  and  leaving  the
canteen staff has always been sanctioned and regulated  by  the  Controller,
i.e. the Assistant Personnel Officer of the Northern Railways.   The  prices
of the food items supplied in the subject Canteen as well  as  the  salaries
of the staff are also fixed  by  the  said  Assistant  Controller  Personnel
Officer.   Even the renovation of the Canteen, in 2005, was carried  out  at
the directions of  the  Northern  Railways,  which  bore  all  the  expenses
incurred in this exercise.  It further  appears  that  the  Appellants  have
been  provided  with  uniforms,  medical  aid,   free   travelling   passes,
residential accommodations, privileged ticket orders etc. by  the  Railways.
Thus, it seems amply clear from this factual  matrix  that  the  Respondents
have remained in control of the management  and  operation  of  the  subject
Canteen.

7     For a canteen to qualify as a ‘Recognized Canteen’  it  is  imperative
to obtain the approval  of  the  Railway  Board.   Since  the  proposal  for
approval, admittedly, had been rejected by  the  Railway  Board  vide  Order
dated 9.9.2002, it follows that the subject Canteen does not  qualify  as  a
‘Recognized Canteen’.  It thus, becomes crucial for us  to  examine  whether
the subject Canteen is a ‘Statutory Canteen’ as postulated in the  Factories
Act, 1948.

8     Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 which provides  for  setting  up
of a ‘Statutory Canteen’ reads as follows:
46. Canteens.—
(1) The State Government may make rules  requiring  that  in  any  specified
factory wherein more than two  hundred  and  fifty  workers  are  ordinarily
employed, a canteen or canteens shall be  provided  and  maintained  by  the
occupier for the use of the workers.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,  such  rules
may provide for—
(a) the date by which such canteen shall be provided;
(b) the standards in respect of construction, accommodation,  furniture  and
other equipment of the canteen;
(c) the foodstuffs to be served therein and the charges which  may  be  made
thereof;
(d) the  constitution  of  a  managing  committee  for   the   canteen   and
representation of the workers in the management of the canteen;
(dd) the items of expenditure in the running of the canteen  which  are  not
to be taken into account in fixing the cost of foodstuffs  and  which  shall
be borne by the employer;
(e) the delegation to the Chief Inspector, subject  to  such  conditions  as
may be prescribed, of the power to make rules under clause (c)

 9    The statute  does  not  exempt  factories  belonging  to  the  Central
Government from its reach; Parliament obviously expected them to conform  to
what it perceived as essential to welfare of the workforce.   It is  evident
from a perusal of the definition of canteens and factories  that  Government
factories have not been conceived of as beyond the concept of  a  ‘factory’,
nor do we find any justification for it to be otherwise. Thus, what  emerges
from the above provision is  that  when  an  establishment  is  a  ‘factory’
within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act, and there are more than  two-
hundred fifty workers employed therein, the Occupier is obliged to set up  a
canteen and conform to the statutory rules made  in  that  behalf.   Section
2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948  defines  ‘Occupier’  of  a  factory  ‘as  a
person who has ultimate control over the  affairs  of  the  factory’.    Sub
Section (iii) of Section 2(n) states that ‘in the case of  a  factory  owned
or controlled by the Central Government or  any  State  Government,  or  any
local authority, the person or persons appointed to manage  the  affairs  of
the factory by the Central Government, the State  Government  or  the  local
authority, as the case may be, shall be deemed  to  be  the  occupier’.   It
cannot be  controverted  that  each  of  the  five  units  of  the  Northern
Railways, including the Moradabad  Division,  is  managed  by  a  respective
Divisional Railway Manager. Thus, for the purposes of Section  2(n)  of  the
Act, it can be fairly inferred that the DRM, by virtue of being  in  control
of the affairs of Moradabad Division, should be deemed to be the  ‘Occupier’
of that unit of the Northern Railways.

10.   Learned Counsel for the Respondents has duly admitted  that  Moradabad
Division is a part of the Northern Railways, but contends that the whole  of
Northern Railways cannot  be  declared  as  ‘Factory’.    We  are  presently
concerned only with the Moradabad DRM, which may well be dissimilar  to  the
other Divisional Offices  of  the  Northern  Railways,  where  manufacturing
activity is absent.  Therefore, we do not find merit in the  said  argument.
Section 4 of the Factories Act, 1948 gives power  to  the  State  Government
to, either suo motu or upon receiving an application in this  behalf  by  an
occupier,  declare  different  departments  to  be   treated   as   separate
factories. However, no such application can be said to  have  been  made  by
the Respondents or by the Northern Railways. In the  absence  of  any  clear
declaration in this respect, we cannot but assume  that  Moradabad  Division
is a unit of Northern Railway and DRM is its occupier  within  Section  2(n)
of the Factories Act, 1948.

11    Further, it also appears that providing for a staff canteen  was  felt
necessary by the Respondents themselves  and  several  representations  were
made to the Railway Board from time to time for recognition of  the  subject
Canteen.  Such conduct  or  approach  is  to  be  expected  of  every  model
employer, as the Government must be.  It is for this very  reason  that  the
Divisional Personnel Officer  made  the  first  request  to  the  Divisional
Superintendent  for  recognition  of  the  subject  Canteen  on  12.06.1972.
Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 addressed another letter to the  Respondent
No. 1 on 19.09.1996, whereby it again stressed that running of a  recognized
canteen in Moradabad is an imperative and important staff  amenity.   It  is
evident that the Respondents were aware of  the  need  for  setting  up  and
continuing a recognised canteen.

12    The Factories Act, 1948  is  a  social  legislation  enacted  for  the
welfare of the workers. It deals with matters  connected  with  the  health,
safety, welfare, working hours of the workers, employment of  young  persons
and leave to be granted to workers.  The  idea  behind  providing  Statutory
Canteen in a Factory is to create efficient, healthy,  loyal  and  satisfied
labor force for the organization.  We  are  of  the  view  that  if  such  a
responsibility has been cast on an occupier of a Factory under the  law,  it
remains obligatory upon DRM, Moradabad to maintain a  statutory  canteen  so
long as the staff strength exceeds two-hundred and fifty.

13    Having discussed and noted the above  statutory  provisions,  we  also
find it necessary to examine the question whether the Moradabad Division  of
the Northern Railways can be considered a factory in  itself  under  Section
2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948.  To  answer  the  said  question,  we  must
examine the definition of ‘factory’ under the Factories Act, 1948.
Section  2(m)  -  “factory”  means  any  premises  including  the  precincts
thereof—
(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any  day  of
the preceding twelve months, and  in  any  part  of  which  a  manufacturing
process is being carried on with the aid  of  power,  or  is  ordinarily  so
carried on, or
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any  day
of the preceding twelve months, and in any part  of  which  a  manufacturing
process is being carried on without the aid of power, or  is  ordinarily  so
carried on,-
but does not include a mine subject to the  operation  of   the  Mines  Act,
1952 (35 of 1952), or  a mobile unit belonging to the armed  forces  of  the
Union, railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place.

14      It can be inferred from above that  the  following  ingredients  are
mandatory to constitute a premises including its precincts as "factory" -
Work i.e. manufacturing process should be carried on within the premises;
If the manufacturing process is being carried on with or without the aid  of
power, the number of  workers required to constitute a  factory  differs  as
follows:
 With the aid of power- 10 or more workers
Without the aid of power- 20 or more workers;
So far as the second requirement is concerned, it cannot  be  disputed  that
the subject Canteen is situated within the precincts of the  office  of  the
DRM, Moradabad and more than 1000 workers are working  in  those  precincts.
The crucial question that arises in the present case  then  is  whether  any
“manufacturing process” is being carried on within the premises of  the  DRM
Office, Moradabad.
Manufacturing process has been defined under Section 2(k)  of  the  Act  as:
Any process for—
(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting,  finishing,  packing,  oiling,
washing, cleaning,  breaking  up,  demolishing,  or  otherwise  treating  or
adapting any article or substance with a view to its use,  sale,  transport,
delivery or disposal;
(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or
(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or
(iv) composing types for printing, printing by  letter  press,  lithography,
photogravure or other similar process or book binding; or
(v) constructing,  reconstructing,  repairing,   refitting,   finishing   or
breaking up ships or vessels; or
(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage.

15    The learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that no  manufacturing
activity is carried out within  the  DRM  Office  of  Moradabad,  where  the
subject Canteen is located.    We, however, do not accept  this  contention.
It cannot be disputed that railway wagons are  repaired  and  maintained  at
the Moradabad  Division.   It  is  also  not  disputed  that  the  Moradabad
Division carries on other activities such as repairing  of  faulty  signals,
sanitation  systems,  loading  and  unloading  of  goods,  supply  of  power
continuously  for  railway  tracks,  railway  station  etc.   Thus,  it  has
perforce to be inferred that manufacturing process is being carried  out  at
the Moradabad Division.
16     The  more  important  question  that  arises  is  whether  the   said
manufacturing activities are carried on within the premises of  DRM  Office,
Moradabad.   Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defines ‘Premises’, so  far
as estates and property are concerned, as lands and tenements.  With  regard
to the Worker’s Compensation Act, ‘premises of employer’ is  not  restricted
to permanent site of the  employer’s  business  nor  to  property  owned  or
leased by him but contemplates any place under the exclusive control of  the
statutory employer where his normal business is conducted or  carried  out.”
 In Kamla Devi V. LaxmiDevi (2000) 5 SCC 646, in the context  of  the  Delhi
Rent Control Act, this Court has held that even an  open  plot  of  land  so
long as it has some structures on  it,  will  fall  within  the  meaning  of
‘premises’.  Extrapolating from these decisions, we  are  in  no  manner  of
doubt that  the  DRM  Office  of  Moradabad  Division  along  with  all  the
appurtenant lands, yards, etc. are ‘premises’ within  the  contemplation  of
the Factories Act.   In Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala  v.  State  of  Bombay  AIR
1962 SC 29,  the  Constitution  Bench  explained  that  "premises  including
precincts" does not necessarily mean that  the  premises  must  always  have
precincts. Even buildings need not have any precincts. The word  "including"
is not a term restricting the meaning of the word "premises" but is  a  term
which enlarges the scope of the word "premises". A comprehensive reading  of
the Factories Act, 1948 clearly shows that the word “premises” can refer  to
an entire area, which may have several separate  buildings,  within  it,  or
which may correspond to an open  yard.    Further,  an  important  point  to
consider is that the definition of "manufacturing process" does not  mandate
that the manufacturing activities should  be  carried  on  in  one  building
alone. What this definition really deals with is  the  nature  of  the  work
done and not with where that work is to be  done.  It  must,  therefore,  be
held that all the requirements  of  the  term  “factory”  as  defined  under
Section 2(m) of the Act are satisfied on the  facts  of  the  present  case.
Thus, the premises of DRM, Moradabad must  be  also  treated  as  a  factory
under the Factories Act, 1948 in which case  Moradabad  Canteen  shall  ipso
facto corresponded to a ‘Statutory Canteen’ within the  meaning  of  Section
46 of the Act.

17    Once that conclusion is reached, the result with respect to status  of
workers employed therein becomes obvious. In M.M.R.  Khan,  this  Court  has
held - “Since in terms of the Rules made  by  the  State  Governments  under
Section 46 of the Act, it is obligatory on  the  Railway  Administration  to
provide a canteen, and  the  canteens  in  question  have  been  established
pursuant to the said provision there is no difficulty in  holding  that  the
canteens are incidental to or connected with the  manufacturing  process  or
the subject of the manufacturing process. The provision of  the  canteen  is
deemed by the statute  as  a  necessary  concomitant  of  the  manufacturing
activity. Paragraph 2829 of the Railway Establishment Manual recognises  the
obligation on the Railway Administration created by the Act and  as  pointed
out earlier paragraph 2834 makes provision  for  meeting  the  cost  of  the
canteens.  Paragraph   2832   acknowledges   that   although   the   Railway
Administration may employ  anyone  such  as  a  Staff  Committee  or  a  Co-
operative  Society  for  the  management  of   the   canteens,   the   legal
responsibility for the proper management rests  not  with  such  agency  but
solely with the Railway Administration…..We  are,  therefore,  of  the  view
that the employees in the statutory canteens of the Railways  will  have  to
be treated as Railway  servants.  Thus  the  relationship  of  employer  and
employee stands created between the Railway Administration and  the  canteen
employees from the very inception.”

18     Therefore,  in  the  light  of  the  settled   principle   enunciated
hereinabove, we hold that the  subject  Canteen  is  a  ‘Statutory  Canteen’
under the Factories Act, 1948 and that the learned Single Judge had  arrived
at the correct conclusion.  In our opinion, the Division Bench of  the  High
Court was not correct in taking a contrary view. We, therefore, allow  these
Appeals.  We set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the High  Court,  and
direct the Respondents to treat  the  subject  Canteen  at  Moradabad  as  a
Statutory Canteen either under  Section  46  of  the  Act  or  the  relevant
clauses of the Indian Railway Establishment Management.    However,  so  far
as the Appellants are concerned, we find it difficult to condone  or  ignore
the fact that they  were  not  appointed  as  per  the  regular  recruitment
procedure. To pass  an  order  regularizing  the  services  of  all  workers
employed therein would necessarily imply ratification of appointments  given
outside the Constitutional scheme.  We, therefore,  direct  the  Respondents
to consider regularizing the services of the  Appellants  presently  serving
as  canteen  workers  in  consonance  with  the  principles  laid  down   in
Secretary, State of Karnataka  v.  Uma  Devi  AIR  2006  SC  1806  and  take
requisite action  within  six  months  of  the  receipt  of  this  Judgment.
Further, as and when the subject posts fall vacant the Respondents shall  be
bound to fill the posts by a regular process of selection.   The  Appellants
in the present case shall be allowed to compete in the  regular  recruitment
and the Respondents shall grant to them appropriate age relaxation  as  well
as grant proper weightage for their having worked in the subject Canteen.

19    There cannot be any cavil that the necessity  for   canteen  amenities
to be available where more than 250 workmen are  engaged,  is  an  essential
facet of human or labour rights.  Managements and employers are  duty  bound
to provide these basic facilities.

20     Stay granted by this  Court  on  28.03.2014  stands  vacated.   There
shall be no order as to costs.

…..…………………………………J.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)



………………………………….…..J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)

New Delhi,
August 3, 2015.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.