KANPUR SURAKSHA KARAMCHARI UNION (REGD.) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 26-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KANPUR SURAKSHA KARAMCHARI UNION (REGD.) 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
AUGUST 26, 1988 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND MURARI MOHON 
c 
DUTT, JJ.) 
Factories Act, 1948: Section 46-Canteens maintained in Defence 
Industrial Installations-Employees working in such canteens-
Employees of the factories in which canteens have been established. 
The President of India, by order dated July 25, 1981 accorded 
sanction to treat all employees of canteens established in Defence In-
dustrial Installations under section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, as 
Government employees. The order was given effect from 22.12.1980. 
D 
The petitioners were working in the canteens of the three Defence 
establishments at Kanpur, forming part of the Defence Department of 
the Union of India. On their retirement after 22.10.1980 the petitioners 
claimed that the period of service rendered by them prior to 22.10.1980 
canteens be counted towards their q'!alifylng service for the purposes of 
pension. 'Their claim was not 11cceP,ted. The respondents' contention 
E was that prior to 22.10.1980 the canteens in Ordnance factories were 
supervise\I and controlled by the Canteen Managing Committee consist-
ing of equal number of elected representatives of the factory workers 
and nominees of management, and these Committees were the appoint· 
Ing authority of the Canteen workers and paid.their salaries. 
F 
Allowing the petitions, It was, 
HELD: (1) It was admltied by the respondents that by the letter 
dated 24.5.1965 of the Ministry of Defence, provision had been made 
for subsidising the canteens maintained in Defence Industrial Installa· 
tions under section 46 of the Act. The letter ·aiso contained directions 
G. regarding pay-scales, conditions of service, etc. of the employees. The 
cost of supervisory and clerical staff and cooks etc. was to be 
reimburstld by the Government and the canteen buildings formed part 
of the industrial establishment concerned. [595A-B) 
(2) The expression 'occupier' of a factory ls defined In section 
» 2f n) of the Factories Act, 1948 as the person who has ultimate control 
590 
KANPUR SURAKSHA UNION v. U.0.1. 
591 
over the affairs of the factory. Under clause (iii) of section 2(n), in t,he 
A 
case of a factory owned or controlled by the Central Government, lihe 
person or persons appointed to manage the affairs of-the. factory by the 
Central Government shall be deemed to be the occupier; [596C-FJ 
(3) A canteen is an integral part of the Defence establishment 
belonging to the Union of India. There cannot be a canteen without B 
sufficient number of workers working in the canteen. They have to be 
appointed by the occupier. Otherwise he would not be fully complying 
with section 46 of the Factories Act. The Managing Committee can~Ot 
be the employer of those workmen in the true sense of the terms. 
The Managing Committee constituted under section 46 of the Act 
which is not an incorporated body and whose financial position is C 
uncertain cannot be considered to be the employer who has to bear 
the legal responsibilities under the several labour · 1aws in force in 
India. [597C-D] 
( 4) The basic requirements of the canteen, such as buildings, 
utensils, crockery, cutlery, furniture, etc. are to be supplied by the D 
occupier. [597B-C] 
(5) In this situation it is difficult to hold that the employees in 
canteens established under section 46 of the Act would not be employees 
of the occupier, even though for purposes of management a Canteen 
Managing Committee, whose functions are advisory, has to be cons-
E 
tituted under the Rules. [597F] 
· 
(6) It Is also not shown that the workers in the canteens becoming 
the Government employees ·on 22.10.1980. They were paid by the pre-
vious management, namely, the Canteen Managing Committee cons-
tituted under rule 68 of the U.P. Factories Rules, 1950 any compensa-
F 
lion In lieu of services rendered by them prior to 22.10.1980. [597F -G] 
(7) It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the employees working in 
such canteens were not employees of the factories in which the canteen 
had been established. If they are employees of the factories in which the 
canteen is established, the service rendered by them in these factories 
G 
should be counted as part of the qualifying service for pension. [597G-H] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 5187-
89 of 1985 etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 

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