1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1381 OF 2010

Chennai Port Trust        ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The Chennai Port Trust  Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association And Ors.           …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final

judgment  and  order  dated  21.02.2006  passed  by

the  High  Court  of  judicature  at  Madras  in  Writ

Appeal No.66 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of

the  High Court  dismissed the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellant  herein  and  affirmed  the  judgment  and

order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the Single Judge

2

of the High Court in Writ Petition No.6872 of 2001

by which the Single Judge allowed the writ petition

filed by respondent No.1 herein.

2. Few  relevant  facts  need  to  be  mentioned

hereinbelow to appreciate the question involved in

the appeal.

3. The  appellant  is  “Chennai  Port  Trust”  at

Chennai.  It has been in existence for the last many

decades  and  has  a  large  administrative  and

technical set up to run their multifarious activities

on the Port.  

4. Large  numbers  of  workers/employees  are

employed  by  the  Port  Trust  who  work  round  the

clock in shifts to run and maintain the activities of

the Port Trust.  These  Port  Trust

workers/employees are provided with the facility of

canteen.   A  Co-Operative  Society  called  “Chennai

Port  Trust  Industrial  Employees  Co-operative

Canteen Limited”  runs the  Canteen.   It  has  been

3

running since 1964. This canteen has employed a

large number of employees to run the canteen. The

employees working in the canteen have formed an

Association  known  as  “Chennai  Port  Trust

Industrial  Employees  Canteen  Workers  Welfare

Association”  (for  short  called

“Association”)-respondent No.1 herein.  

5. The Association-respondent No.1 herein filed a

writ petition being W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the High

Court  at  Madras  against  the  appellant  herein

(Chennai  Port  Trust)  espousing the  cause of  their

members (employees working in the Canteen) and

sought a writ of mandamus against the appellant -

Chennai  Port  Trust  (respondent  No.3  in  the  writ

petition)  directing  the  appellant  to  treat  the

employees working in the Canteen to be the regular

employees  of  the  Chennai  Port  Trust  and

accordingly  pay  them all  attendant  and monetary

4

benefits  at  par  with the  regular  employees  of  the

Chennai Port Trust.  

6. According  to  the  writ  petitioner  (employees

concerned), they have been working in the Canteen

for decades and regularly catering and fulfilling the

needs of the employees of the Port Trust.  According

to the Association, the members of the Association -

employees  working  in  the  canteen  are  entitled  to

claim the same benefit and perks which are being

given  to  the  regular  permanent  employees  of  the

Chennai  Port  Trust.  The  Association  also  pointed

out  the  similar  instances  of  other  government

organizations  wherein  the  benefits  of  this  nature

were  given  to  the  employees  working  in  the

organizations alike the members of the Association

in question.

7. The  Chennai  Port  Trust  mainly  opposed  the

writ petition on two issues.  First, the Chennai Port

Trust  has  no  control  whatsoever  over  any  of  the

5

activities of the Canteen in question including any

control over its employees and second, the question

as  to  whether  the  canteen  employees  are  to  be

treated as employees of the Chennai Port Trust or

not  is  a  question  of  fact  and,  therefore,  the  writ

petition is  not  the  effective  remedy to  decide  this

question.   According  to  the  Chennai  Port  Trust,

such issues should be raised before the Industrial

Tribunal for its adjudication.  

8. The Writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ

petition  filed  by  the  Association(respondent  No.1

herein) and accordingly issued a writ of mandamus

against  the  appellant  (Chennai  Port  Trust),  as

prayed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition. In

other  words,  the  writ  Court  granted  the  reliefs

claimed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.

9. The  appellant  (Chennai  Port  Trust)  felt

aggrieved  and  filed  intra  court  appeal  before  the

Division  Bench  in  the  High  Court.  By  impugned

6

judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal

and upheld the order of the Single Judge, which has

given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of

special leave by the Chennai Port Trust.

10. Heard Mr. Keshav Thakur, learned counsel for

the appellant and Mr. Anil Kaushik, Mr. B. Vinodh

Kanna and Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,  learned counsel

for the respondents.

11. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

12. In our considered view, the Writ Court (Single

Judge) and the Division Bench were right in their

reasoning and the conclusion.

13. The  Division  Bench,  in  our  opinion,  rightly

relied  upon  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Indian

Petrochemicals  Corporation  Ltd.  and  Anr.  vs

Shramik  Sena  &  Ors., (1999)  6  SCC  439  and

compared the facts of the above case with that of

7

the  case  at  hand  and  found  great  similarities  in

both  for  granting  relief  to  the  members  of  the

respondent (Association).

14. The Division Bench in Paras 14 and 15 of the

impugned judgment took note of 20 factors of this

case,  which  were  found  identical  to  the  facts

involved in  Indian Petrochemicals’s case (supra)

wherein this Court had issued a writ of mandamus

against  the  main  employer  in  relation  to  such

employees  working  in  the  canteen  run  for  the

benefit of the employer.  It is apposite to reproduce

Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment which

read as under:

“14.  Even  before  the  learned  single  Judge, the  Port  Trust  objected  to  deciding  the factual  issues  in  proceedings  under Article 226 since the appropriate forum is only the Labour  Court  or  the  Tribunal.  The  learned single Judge observed that the averments in the  affidavit  have  not  been  specifically denied  in  the  counter  affidavit  except  to state that the Management of the Port Trust has  no  control  over  the  functioning  of  the canteen.  Therefore,  apart  from  a  general

8

denial,  the  various  assertions  were  not specifically denied. The learned single Judge then proceeded to set down the various facts and  circumstances  that  show  the administrative control exercised by the Port Trust  over  the  Canteen,  and  they  are  as follows :

(i)  The  fact  that  the  establishment  is kept  open during  the entire  24 hours with  employees  working  in  several shifts  is  not  denied.  Thereby,  the necessity of the workmen to have their food  inside  the  factory  itself  is confirmed  and  that  the  canteen  is mainly intended only for the workers.

(ii)  The fact that the Rules framed by the  Society  for  running  the  canteen shall be subject to the approval of the Chairman  is  not  denied.  This  proves that  the  ultimate  control  of  the administration  of  the  canteen  is  with the Port Trust.

(iii) It is only the workers belonging to the  Port  Trust  who  are  eligible  to become members of the Society and not others.

(iv) It is only the nominee of the Port Trust who can act as the Chairman of the Co-operative Society.

(v)  The  Port  Trust  administration  has the right to audit the accounts of the canteen.

(vi)  Electricity  and water  are  supplied by the  Port  Trust  free  of  charge.  The premises  is  also  held  by  the  Society rent free.

9

(vii)  As  per  bye-law  15,  the  fourth respondent  Society,  the  President  as well as four other contractors shall be nominated  by  the  Registrar  only  in consultation with the Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust.

(viii) The Port Trust provides cost of the staff  employed  by  the  canteen, maintains  the  building,  reimburses 100%  of  the  fuel  costs  and  all  the benefits to the canteen employees.

(ix) The prices of the food stuff are very cheap and the food is carried in trickles to the workers in the Marshalling Yard, ONGC  Pipeline,  Oil  Dock,  Diesel  Loco and such other places where a canteen cannot  be  established  and  specifically intended only for the workers.

(x) The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) of the Port Trust has been nominated as the  President  of  the  canteen  and  the entire canteen affairs are handled and controlled  by  the  Chief  Mechanical Engineer of the Port Trust.

(xi) The financial matters are controlled by  the  Financial  Adviser  and  Chief Accounts Officer of the Port Trust.

(xii)  The  President  of  the  fourth respondent controls  all  policy matters concerning the canteen.

(xiii)  It  is  a  matter  of  common knowledge  that  at  least  as  far  as Chennai Port Trust is concerned, it is located  in  a  place  that  the  nearest restaurant or canteen would be at least two to three kilometres away from the entrance of  the Port  Trust.  Therefore,

10

the  canteen  is  a  must  not  only  for employees, but also for the entire staff at  various  levels  and  also  visitors having official and commercial dealings with  the  Port  Trust.  The  Port  Trust itself is a very large and sprawling area from one end to the other.  Therefore, the  canteen  is  an  indispensable necessity to the Port Trust.

The learned single Judge thereafter observed that none of the aforesaid positive claims of the  writ  petitioner  are  denied  by  the respondents. It is only because there was no dispute on facts that the learned single Judge proceeded to decide the matter, though the workmen had directly filed the writ petition without approaching the Tribunal.

15. If we see the Indian Petrochemical's case, the similarity of  the factual  issues is  quite startling. In that case –

(a)  The  canteen  has  been  there  since the inception of the appellant's factory.

(b)  The  workmen have  been employed for long years and despite a change of contractors,  the  workers  have continued  to  be  employed  in  the canteen.

(c)  The  premises,  furniture,  fixture, fuel, electricity, utensils etc. have been provided for by the appellant.

(d)  The  wages  of  the  canteen workers have to be reimbursed by the appellant.

(e) The supervision and control on the canteen  is  exercised  by  the  appellant through its authorised officer, as can be seen  from  the  various  clauses  of  the

11

contract between the appellant and the contractor.

(f)  The  contractor  is  nothing  but  an agent  or  a  manager  of  the  appellant, who  works  completely  under  the supervision,  control  and  directions  of the appellant.

(g) The workmen have the protection of continuous  employment  in  the establishment.

On the basis of the above facts, the Supreme Court  arrived  at  the  opinion  that  the workmen  were  the  workmen  of  the management  and  by  the  same  process  of reasoning, the learned single Judge also came to the conclusion that the canteen workmen were the workmen of the Port Trust. We see no error in this reasoning.”

15. We find no fault in the aforementioned findings

recorded  by  the  Division  Bench  as,  in  our  view,

these  findings  were  recorded  on  the  basis  of

undisputed facts and documents on record of  the

case.  That  apart,  these  findings  were  recorded

keeping in view the facts involved and law laid down

by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals

(supra)

12

16. Mere perusal  of  the decision rendered in the

case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) would go to

show  that  in  that  case  also,  somewhat  similar

question, which is the subject matter of this appeal,

had arisen at the instance of the employees working

in  canteen.   This  Court  (Three  Judge  Bench)

elaborately examined the question and took note of

the  relevant  undisputed  facts,  which had bearing

over  the  question,  granted  the  reliefs  to  the

employees concerned.  

17. In our considered opinion,  the approach and

the reasoning of the two Courts below (Writ Court

and Division Bench) while deciding the writ petition

and  the  appeal  arising  out  of  the  writ  petition

keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in

the case of  Indian Petrochemicals (supra) is just,

proper and legal.

18. In other words, if on the undisputed facts, this

Court has granted benefit to the canteen workers in

13

the  case  of  Indian  Petrochemicals (supra)  then

there  is  no  reason  that  on  the  same  set  of

undisputed  facts  arising  in  this  case,  the  Court

should  not  grant  the  benefit  to  the

employees/workers in this case. It is more so when

no distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case

qua Indian Petrochemicals’s case(supra).  

19. We  are,  therefore,  in  agreement  with  the

approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at

by the two Courts below.

20. We  are,  however,  not  impressed  by  the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

(Chennai  Port  Trust)  when he contended that  the

writ  Court  should  not  have  entertained  the  writ

petition  and  instead  the  respondent  (Writ

Petitioner-Association)  should  have  been  granted

liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court for adjudication of the dispute raised by them

in the writ petition.

14

21. In the first place, writ Court having entertained

the writ petition and granted relief on merits, this

objection has lost its significance now; Second, the

appellate Court also having gone into the merits of

the case and affirmed the order of the writ Court on

merits, it is too late to entertain such submission,

which is technical in nature; and third, the findings

on merits have been recorded by the two Courts on

the basis of undisputed facts/documents requiring

no trial on facts.

22. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that

the submission of learned counsel for the appellant

has no merit.

23. Though  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant

argued some more issues but they did not impress

us so as to reverse the findings of the two courts

below and in any case, in the light of the findings

recorded by the two Courts below, which are based

on the law laid down by this Court in the case of

15

Indian  Petrochemicals  (supra),  we  need  not

entertain his submissions.  

24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find

no  merit  in  the  appeal,  which  fails  and  is

accordingly dismissed.

                  ………...................................J.   [R. K. AGRAWAL]

                                    …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; April 27, 2018