CANTEEN MAZDOOR SABHA versus METALLURGICAL ENGG. CONSULTANTS (I) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 21-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CANTEEN MAZDOOR SABHA 
v. 
METALLURGICAL ENGG. CONSULTANTS (I) LTD. & ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MA THUR AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S. 10(2)/Constitution of India, 1950; 
C Article 39(d): 
Service conditions-Employees of a canteen engaged by a ~elfare 
Committee of Respondent-organisation claiming to be treated at par with its 
regular employees-Disputes-Industrial Tribunal passing an award holding 
D that workmen of the Canteen entitled to same pay scales as available to the 
workmen of the Guest House and Tea Club run by respondent-organisation-
Cha//enge to-Dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court-Reversed by 
Division Bench of the High Court holding that since there was no master and 
servant relationship between the workmen of Canteen and the respondent 
organization, they are not entitled to same service benefits as are admissible 
E to its regular workmen-On appeal, Held: Jn order to grant equal pay for 
equal work, the Court has to first redress the question whether any 
relationship of master and servan.t exists between the workmen and the 
organization-Jn the present case, on evidence, there exists no master servant 
relationship between the workmen of the Canteen and the respondent. 
F 
G 
H 
organisation since the workmen of Canteen are appointed by a welfare 
Committee of the respondent and not by the respondent-In the absence of 
existence of master and servant relationship between workmen of the Canteen 
and the respondent organisation, question of giving them same benefits, 
including salary at par with the workmen of respondent-organisation, does 
not arise. 
A writ petition was filed by the appellants in the Apex Court earlier and 
this Court by order dated 23rd February, 1987 directed to list the matter after 
pronouncement of the judgment in a bunch of writ petitions. Later, after 
pronouncement of the judgment in such petitions, when the writ petitions came 
210 
\ 
CANTEEN MAZDOOR SABHA v. METALLURGICAL ENGG. CONSULTANTS (l) LTD. 
211 
up for final disposal, the Court passed an order directing the State Government A 
to refer the dispute, as to whether the employees of canteen engaged by the 
Welfare Committee of respondent/MECON & Others are entitled to the same 
service conditions/benefits as are applicable to the employees of the VIP Guest 
House and of the Tea Club who were engaged by MECON, and if so, from 
which date etc., to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Accordingly, State B 
Government referred the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 
10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. The Tribunal raised the 
following points for consideration: 
"(i) Whether the present reference is bad in law and on facts.? 
(ii)Whether the relationship of employer and employees exists in C 
between the management of MECON; and 
(iii) Whether the employees of MECON Canteen are entitled to get 
pay scale and other benefits as available to the employees of VIP 
Guest House as well as the employees of Tea Club of MECON. 
D 
The Tribunal held that neither the reference was bad in law nor on facts, 
relationship of employer and employees existed between the management of 
MECON and the workmen of MECON Canteen and that the workmen of 
MECON Canteen are entitled to get pay scales and other benefits which were 
available to the workmen ofMECON, VIP Guest House and MECON Tea Club 
from the dates of appointments. This award was challenged by MECON in the E 
High Court. Single judge of the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal 
and declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 
Aggrieved against the order, MECON approached the Division Bench of the 
High Court by way of filing an appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court 
observed that no Master and servant relationship existed between the F 
employees of the Canteen and MECON, and as such they were not entitled to 
the same service benefits as are admissible to the employees of MECON 
serving for the VIP Guest House or for the Tea Club. Hence the present appeal 
Appellant submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has gone 
wrong and should not have gone into the question of relationship of employees G 
of the canteen with that of the management of MECON. 
Dismissing the appeal; the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no two opinion in the matter that the canteen is not 
managed by the management of MECON. The point which ought to have been H 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.