INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus SHRAMIK SENA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 04-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-Y· 
,f 
-
INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
SHRAMIK SENA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 4, 1999 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Factories Act, 1948. 
Sections 2 (1) and 46-Statutory Canteen established by Management 
under Section 46-Workmen employed in such canteens-Status of-Held, 
workmen of a statutory canteen would be the workmen of the establishment 
for the purpose of the Factories Act only and not for all other purposes. 
Service Law. 
Regularisation-Workmen employed in statutory canteen claiming 
regularisation-Management contending that workmen are the employees of 
Contractor-Status of Workmen-Held, under the facts and circumstances, 
such workmen are the employees of the management and are entitled to 
regularisation-Court imposing certain conditions while directing 
regularisation-Imposition of conditions challenged by workmen-Held, it is 
necessary that suitable guidelines or conditions be laid down at the time of 
courts' issuing directions to regularise the services of the workmen depending 
upon the facts of each case. 
Words & Phrases-'Workman '-Meaning of in the context of Factories 
Act, 1948. 
Canteen employees filed a writ petition before the High Court for a 
declaration that they were regular workmen of the management entitled to 
regularisation and all consequential benefits including arrears of wages etc. 
High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the workmen 
working in all establishments where canteens are maintained as a requirement 
of the statute (namely, Section 46 of the Factories Act) ipso facto became the 
regular workmen of the management on the basis of the judgement in the 
case of Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 
47 
A 
B 
c 
D 
I 
E 
F 
G 
H 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A & Ors., (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 611 and held that since the said workmen were 
working in the statutory canteen of the management, they were entitled to 
absorption and gave certain directions in regard to their absorption. Aggrieved 
by the judgment of the High Court, the management, and aggrieved by the 
conditions imposed by the High Court while directing their regularisation, 
the workmen,' have both appealed to this court. 
B 
The Management contended that various reservation orders of the 
State and its own recruitment policy would be violated, ifthe impugned order 
is implemented; that the workmen were employed by a contractor who was 
an independent employer; that there was no relationship of 'master' and 
C 'servant' between the workmen and the management; that the supervision or 
controlling power over the workmen wholly rested with the contractor; that 
the employees working in statutory canteen could become employees of the . 
management only for the limited purpose of the Factories Act and had no 
automatic rights to be absorbed as regular workmen; that the continuity of 
the employees, in spite of change of contractors, was due to an order made 
D by the Industrial Court, Thane in this regard; and that the management was -
free to engage contractor to provide canteen services in its establishment as 
there was no prohibition of contract labour. 
The workmen contended that every workman of a statutory canteen 
E would become the regular employee of the principal employer; and 
alternatively, that induction of contractor is a facade put up by the management 
to evade its responsibility; that once an employee is found to be an employee 
of the management because of the Factories Act, he becomes its employee 
for all purposes; and that once the High Court had come to the conclusion 
F 
that the workmen were the employees of the management, it should not ~ave· 
imposed conditions while directing their regularisation. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is clear from the definition of'worker' under Section 2(1) 
G of th~ Factories Act, 1948 that a person em ployed either directly or by or 
through any contractor in a place where manufacturing process is carried 
on, is a 'workman' for the purpose of the Act: Section 46 of the Act empowers 
the State Government to make rules requiring any specified factory wherein 
more than 250 workers are ordinarily employed to provide and maintain a 
canteen by the occupier for the use of the workers. It is not .in dispute, 
H pursuant to this requirement of law, the management is providing canteen 
,_• 
INDIAN PETROCHEM. CORPN. LTD.'" SHRAMIK SENA 
49 
facil

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