LexM.M.R. KHAN AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M.M.R. KHAN AND ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. FEBRUARY 27, 1990 [RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Railway Establishment Manual: Para 2831-Employees of Rail- ways established statutory and non statutory recognised canieens- Whether railway servants. The petitioners in this group of Writ Petitions are workers in canteens run in different railway establishments. The relief claimed in all the petitions is that the workers concerned should be treated as railway employees and should be extended all service conditions which are available to the railway employees. For convenience sake, the canteens have been classified into three categories, viz., (i) Statutory canteens; (ii) Non-statutory Recognised Canteens, and (iii) Non-Statutory Non-Recognised canteens. Chapter XXVIII of the Railway Establishment Manual contains A B c D the necessary instructions for running the canteens. Paragraph 2829 of E Chapter XXVIII of the Manual refers to the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 and nnder-writes the fact that under these provisions, there is a statutory obligation on the Railway Administra- tion to set up canteens in Railway establishments which are governed by ~ - the said Act and which employ more than 250 persons. Paragraph 2831 ~ lays down the principles governing the setting up of the canteens which F apply also to the non-statutory canteens provided for under paragraph 2830. Paragraph 2832 inter alia states that although the Administration can employ as agent a Staff Committee or a Co-operative Society for management, the legal responsibility for proper management rests not with the agency but solely with the Railway Administration. G The Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, had issued Administrative Instructions on Departmental Canteens in Offices and Industrial Establishments of the Government. It is made clear in these instructions that the orders issued under the said Instructions are applicable to all Canteens/Tiffin Rooms functioning or to be set up in any Ministry, Department, Establish- H 687 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] I S.C.R. A. ment, Office, or Installation of the government of India (Industrial or '1111 non-industrial), including those functioning under the Ministries of J Defence, P & T and Railways unless these three Ministries had pre- viously decided to exempt any of the said Instructions due to specific reasons. R It was contended on behalf of the petitioner-workers that, in view of the documents on record there is no reason why the employees in the 4 canteens concerned should not be giwn the status of the railway employees with all consequential benefits. On the other hand. it was contended on behalf of the Railways that (i) the canteen employees are appointed by the Staff Managing C Committees or Co-operative Societies and not by the Railway Administ- ration and as such there is no relationship of master and servant bet- ) ween the Railwasy Administration and the Canteen employees, and in no case can they be deemed as holders of civil posts, either for Article 309 or for Article 311 of the Constitution; (ii) the control exercised by D the Railway administration is only to ensure that the canteens are run in conformity with certain requirements; (iii) the Railways have a primary objective of carrying goods and passengers and the welfare activities are ancillary to the main objective; (iv) the canteens continue at the discre- ~ lion of the Railway Administration, and at any stage the Government can change the form of this welfare measure and choose to have another E set-up; (v) the Railways undertake varied welfare activities, and if it is decided to treat the employees engaged in the canteens as railway employees, it will be difficult to resist the claim from employees of these other institutions for a similar status; and (vi) the Railway Establish- ment Manual contains the necessary instructions for running the can- teens, and hence the Railway Administration should be deemed to have '~ F been exempted from the operation of the Administrative Instructions on f Departmental Canteens in Offices and Industrial Establishments of the Government, issued by the Department of Personnel & Training. Allowing the petitions filed by the employees of the statutory can- tee:.s and non-statutory (recognised) canteens, and dismissing those of G the non-st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.