PARIMAL CHANDRA AND ORS. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 29-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PARIMAL CHANDRA AND ORS. 
v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 1995 
[P.B. SAWNT AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: Life Insurance Corporation-Claim of canteen employees 
that they are employees of corporation and thus entitled to parity with 
employees of Corporation-Canteen facilities provided to staff for a very long 
C time-By usage and customary benefits canteen facilities becoming the con-
dition of service-Corporation having dominating say in dictating the terms 
of canteen contract-Contract indicating that Corporation was desirous of 
running the canteen-Held on facts there was implicit obligation to provide 
canteen services-Canteen workers held employees of Corporation-Factories 
D Act and West Bengal shops and Establishment Act held inapplicable. 
Principle of equal pay for equal work-Applicability of 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 226 and 32 
E 
Writ-Canteen employees of LIC-l'rayer for wages equivalent to wages 
paid to employees of LIC-Withdrawal of writ-Filing of writ in Supreme 
Court-Preliminary objection that relief claimed in this Cowt was not claimed 
before High Cou~eld not maintainable on facts. 
Pleadings-Interpretation o~Should be read as a whole and const!Ued 
F accordingly. 
The appellant-workmen-working in the canteens at different offices 
of the respondent-Corporation filed a writ petition in the High Court of 
Calcutta for directions to the respondent-Corporation to comply with the 
policy of equal pay for equal work and accordiL.:IY pay to the appellants 
G the minimum salary that was enjoyed by the staff of the Corporation and 
also to follow the policy which was prevalent for canteen workers in other 
Government departments, railways and statutory corporations. The appel· 
lants specifically pleaded that (i) the staff of the respondent-Corporation 
at all its establishments were provided with facilities of canteen by tlte 
H respondent-Corporation for more than few decades and that by usage and 
34 
-
P. CHANDRA v. L.l.C. 
35 
customary benefits canteen facilities became the condition of service of the A 
employees - a fact not specifically controverted by the Respondent-Cor-
poration. (ii) being canteen employees and engaged in operation inciden-
tally connected with the industry carried on by the respondent-
corporation, the appellants antomatically became the direct employees 
under the respondent-Corporation and as such they cannot be dis-
B 
criminated against and denied the prevalent minimum wages. 
The case of the respondent-Corporation before the Single Judge of 
the High Court was that the canteens did not belong to it nor were they 
run by it. The Corporation only gave its employees the facilities to run the 
canteens. The canteens were run during different periods either by the C 
canteen-committees of the staff or their cooperative society. It has no 
connection mnch less contract of employment with the appellants. Nor 
does it have any control over their working conditions of service or the 
termination of their services. Appellants were therefore not the employees 
of the Corporation and cannot be deemed to be so. 
D 
However, the facts on record revealed in nnmistakable terms that 
canteen services were provided to the employees for a long time and from 
time to time the Respondent-Corporation was taking steps to provide the 
said services. Further from the terms of the contract which was rxclusively 
entered Into between the Corporation and the canteen Contractor - it was E 
clear that the Corporation has the dominating say in dictating the terms 
and conditions of the contract and that it was the Corporation and not the 
employees of the Corporation or their union or cooperative society which 
was desirous of running the canteen. 
F 
A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and 
granted the relief prayed for. The respondent- Corporation preferred a 
Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Conrt. The 
averments made by the appellants in their rejoinder before the Division 
Bench of the High Conrt to the effect that the job done by the canteen 
employees was of perennial nature and was incidental to the running of G 
the main business of the Corporation and it was being done by the 
Corporation through their Intermediaries - sometimes by contractors, 
sometimes by cooperative society and sometimes by canteen employees 
themselves was not denied by the Corporation. However, the Division 
Bench

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