LexG.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, PANTNAGAR, NAINITAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
G.B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, A PANTNAGAR, NAINITAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. AUGUST 10, 2000 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Service Law: U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958-Hostel and Cafeteria Regula- tions-Employees working in cafeteria maintained by University-Regularisa- tion-Held, employees of cafeteria to be treated as regular employees of the University on facts aml 011 grounds of economic and social justice. Appellant, a residential University, established under U.P. Agricul- tural University Act, 1958, has 14 hostels and a cafeteria to provide food services to residents of the hostels and others. There are about 175 employ- ees working in that cafeter1a who claim regularisation of their services as employees of the University. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court declared them to the regular employees of the Univer- sity from the date of the award, entitled to receive the same salary and other benefits as the other regular employees of the University. The Uni- versity filed writ petitions before High Court. The High Court upheld the Labour Court's award. In appeal, the University contended that it was the Food Committee B c D E and not the University which had a role in the matter of management and control of the cafeteria as per the provisions of Hostel and Cafeteria F Regulatiom under U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958; that the em- ployees of the cafeteria were not appointed by the University and, there- fore, there is no master-servant relationship; that there was no budgetary allocation in the budget of the University to meet the expenses for salaries of the cafeteria employees because they are not University employees. The G appellant further contended that a pragmatic approach should be made because accepting the claim of the cafeteria employees would place too heavy a financial burden on the University. The respondents contended that under the provisions of the Univer- sity Act and the Regulations, it is obligatory on the students to reside in H 391 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A hostel and avail of food services that is provided by cafeteria maintained by the University; that therefore the employees working in the cafeteria should be treated as employees of the University. B c D E F G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD 1. Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations framed under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958 unmistakably depict that the twin con- ventional tests of implicit obligation and factors of over all control and su- pervision by the University stand satisfied and the legal responsibility can- not be shWed to the students. Reading the Regulations as a whole, it cannot be doubted that the same are only framed for moral, persuasive and demo- cratic reasons so as to involve the students and to elicit their views, sugges- tions and ensure their participation in mutual exercise of co-operation. Regu- lations 54, 76, 80, 82, 88, 92, 106, 107 and 109 exhibit the control of the University in the matter of running of the cafeteria. A residential University having a canteen facility and the inmates of the hostel not being permitted to have food from outside cannot possibly be said to be a mere welfare serv- ice to the students. It is a requirement of the Regulations framed under the Act and thus having statutory sanction and foree. The Regulations pertain- ing to the hostel accommodation and the supplies of food do not warrant any other conclusion than to treat it as an essential requirement so far as the inmates of the hostel are concerned. The involvement of the Vice-Chancel- lor, the Warden and the Food Managers who admittedly all belong to the University as employees thereof cannot negate the cry of the labour force asking for a parity in their scale of pay. Regularisation will undoubtedly bring forth a parity with the other employees of the University. The re- quirement of the number of employees also cannot be brushed aside. More than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food to the inmates of the hostels - there are altogether 14 hostels and the inmates have to depend on the Cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, as a matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria - it is a requirement of the .. Regulation. The Regulations lead to unmistakable conclusion that the em- ployees of the Cafeteria can
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.