EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1176 · Decided: 28-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF 
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
FEBRUARY 28, 1996 
(A.M. AHMADI, CJ., S.C. SEN AND KS. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
C 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(a). 
Employees of canteens-Run by employer organisation-No legal or 
statu(01y obligation to mn such canteens-Not light to supe1vise or control 
their work or take disciplina1y·action against them-Held: Master and Se1vant 
Relationship did not exist-Hence they were not workmen of organisa-
D tion-Not entitled to regulalisation-Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 
E 
F 
The-appellant-Bank had been providing canteen facilities to its 
employees in Classes III and IV. The "Lounge" at the appellant-Bank 
catered to its officers at some centres. There was no obligation either under 
any statute or otherwise, for the appellant to run the canteens. It was so 
done only as a welf~re measure. The .appellant bore by way of a subsidy to 
the extent of95% of the costs incurred by the canteens for payment of salary, 
provident fund contribution, gratuity, uniform etc.; and also provided 
premises, fixtures, utensils, furniture, electricity, water etc.; free of charges. 
The canteens were run either by "Implementation Committee (Canteen 
Committee)" or "Co-operative Societies" or "Contractors". Out of 12 repre-
sentatives in the Implementation Committee three were from the appellant-
Bank. Some employees, who were in the Committee were permitted by the 
appellant for full day or half day to look after or supervise the day-to- day 
affairs of the canteen. The Committee could neither increase the strength of 
the canteen employees nor could revise their wages without the consent.of 
G the appellant-Bank. The appellant reimbursed the charges incurred for 
getting the licences for the canteens and also the expenses incurred over the 
periodical medical check iip of the employees attached to the kitchen and 
counters. In these circumstances the Central Government Industrial 
Tribunal held that the persons employed in the canteens to be employees of 
H the appellant-Bank. The Tribunal further directed the appellant to tit them 
1176 
) 
t -
) , 
,, 
( 
RESERVEBANKOFINDIAv. THEIR WORKMEN 
1177 
with retrospective effect, in the corresponding categories of employees A 
employed in the Officers" lounge. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment the 
appellant preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.l. Against the aspects relied on by the Central Government B 
Industrial Tribunal for its decision in respect of canteens run by the Im-
plementation Committee (Canteen Committee), the fact remains that the 
appeJJant-Bank has only a limited role to play regarding the functioning of 
the committee and do not have any control whatsoever on the employees 
engaged by the committee so far as taking of disciplinary action against any C 
particular employee is concerned. The recruitment of the workers for the 
canteen is made by the Canteen Committee, and the attendance record as 
well as the sanctioning of leave to the workers is done by the committee. 
The canteen run by the Implementation Committee (Canteen Committee) 
is not under any legal obligation to run the same. Moreover, there is no 
right in the Bank to supervise and control the work done by the persons D 
employed in that committee nor has the Bank any right to direct the 
manner in which the work shall be done by various persons. The ·Bank has 
absolutely no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct any canteerr 
employee to do a particular work. Even ~rding to the Tribunal, the Bank 
exercises only a 'remote control'. Therefore, m the absence of any obligation E 
statutory or otherwise regarding the running of a canteen by the Bank and 
the details relating thereto similar to Factories Act or the Railway Estab-
lishment Manual, and in the absence of any effective or direct control in 
the Bank to supervise and control the work done by vari.ous persons, the 
workers in the canteen run by the Implementation Committee (Canteen 
Committee) cannot come within the ratio laid down by this Court in M.MR. F 
Khan's case. (1189-C; F-G; 1190-A-C] 
1.2. As regards the canteens run by the Cooperative Societies, the 
mere fact that the Bank nominates its representative to the committee or 
reimburses the licence renewal charges will not in any way provide any . G 
direct control. (1190-D-F] 
1.3. As per the agreement between the Bank and the contra

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