CHENNAI PORT TRUST versus THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 27-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
637
CHENNAI PORT TRUST
v.
THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES
CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 2010)
APRIL 27, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Service Law – Claim for parity with regular employees – When
justified – Workers/employees employed by appellant-Port Trust
provided with the facility of canteen – Respondent No.1-Association
of employees working in the canteen filed writ petition in High Court
for direction to appellant to treat the employees working in the
Canteen as the regular employees working in appellant-Port Trust
and accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at
par with the regular employees – Writ petition allowed by Single
Judge – Order upheld by Division Bench – On appeal, held: In
view of identical facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s case
wherein Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus against the main
employer in relation to employees working in the canteen, Division
Bench rightly relied upon the said decision in granting relief to the
members of the respondent-Association – No fault in the findings
recorded by Division Bench recorded on the basis of undisputed
facts and documents on record – Constitution of India – Art.226.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench rightly relied upon the
decision of Supreme Court in Indian Petrochemicals case and
compared the facts of the above case with that of the case at hand
and found great similarities in both for granting relief to the
members of the respondent (Association).  The Division Bench
took note of 20 factors of this case, which were found identical to
the facts involved in Indian Petrochemicals’s case wherein
Supreme 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.  [Paras 13, 14] [641-A-C]
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 637
637
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
1.2 No fault is found in the said findings recorded by the
Division Bench as 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 Supreme Court in the case of Indian
Petrochemicals. [Para 15] [644-C]
1.3 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 Supreme Court in the case of Indian
Petrochemicals is just, proper and legal. In other words, if on the
undisputed facts, Supreme Court has granted benefit to the
canteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals 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
Petrochemical’s case. [Paras 17, 18] [644-E-G]
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v.
Shramik Sena & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 439 : [1999] 1
Suppl. SCR  47 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR  47
     relied on
 Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1381
of  2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2006 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 66 of 2006.
Keshav Thakur, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Anil Kaushik, Abhishek
Mishra, Rajinder Singh, Shiv Prakash Pandey, B. Vinodh Kanna,
A. Sriram, M. Yogesh Kanna, Jayanth Muth Raj, P. V. Dinesh, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
639
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 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 multifariou

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