LexSARASPUR MILLS CO. LTD. versus RAMANLAL CHIMANLAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A c D E SARASPUR MILLS CO. LTD. v. RAMANLAL CHIMANLAL & ORS. April 12, 1973 [A. N. GROVER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, Gujarat A1nend111ent 1962--Clauses 13 and 14 of Section 3-En~rustnzent of work which in ordinarily a part of the undertaking-Legal obligation of a factory to run a canteen under Section 46 of Factories Act-Entrust1nent of running the canteen to a Cooperative Society-Factories Act 1948, Section 2(1) work incidental to the manufacturirlg process-Running of a canteen by a textile 1nill. The appellant Textile Mill had a statutory obligation, as a factory, under the provisions of Section 46 of Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder for maintaining a canteen for its workers. The appellant · entrusted the management of the canteen to a cooperative society. The workers of the canteen demanded additional wages and dearness allowance, in terms of certain awards claiming that they were the employee of the appellant within the meaning of Clauses (13) and (14) of Sec. 3 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938 as amended by Gujarat Legislature in 1962. The workers contended. that the running of the canteen was an ordinary part of the undertaking of appellants, since it was a statutocy ob- ligation for the appellant to do so. The appellant on the other hand con- tended that the cooperative society was neither the agent nor the contractor of appellant. Rejecting the appea1, HELD : Under the Factories Act, it was the duty of the appellant to run and maintain canteen for the use of its employees. Under c1all3es ( 13) and ( 14) of Section 3 as amended in 1962, the definition of an employee is extended by a fiction (if law and certain employees are recog- nised 1l9 statutory employees. The workers in question fall under the said definition. [972B] Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Their Work- men. [1964] 2 S.C.R. 838, relied upon. Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Ujagar and Ors. [1953] II L.L.J. 647, followed, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1957 G of 1968. ' Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 26, 1968 of the Industrial Court Gujarat Ahmedabad in Appeal ( fC) No. 58 of 1966. . S. V. Gupte, P. C. Bhartari, and l. B. Dadachanji & Co., for If th; appellant. V. M. Tarkunde, and S. S. Shukla, for respondents 1 (a) to l(hj. 9f1 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 3 S,C.R. 1he Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER, J : This is an Appeal by special leave from an Order of the Industrial Court,, Gujarat which reversed an order made by the 2nd Labour Court, Alunedabad. A Ramanlal Chimanlal and others are the workers of a canteen which is run by the Saraspur Mills Canteen Co-operative Society Limited, Ahmedabad (hereinafter called the co-operative society). The appellant company is responsible for maintaining the canteen under the provisions of S. 46 of the Factories· Act and the rules made thereunder. The appellant handed over to the co-operative society the task cf running the canteen. The·workers mentioned above filed an application before the 2nd Labour Court at Ahmedabad under S. 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act), complaining that the appellant was not paying them the wages and deamess allowances B as per the directions contained in the Award of the Bombay Industrial Court made in Reference No. 18 of 194 7 and supple- mentary Award given in certain miscellaneous applications of 1956 and 1962 respectively relating to additional wages sanctioned by the said Award. It was alleged by the applicants in support of their claim that by virtue of certain amendments made in the Act in the definition cf the word "employer" they became workers of the appellant, which was bound to pay wages and dearness allowances settled by the aforesaid Award and !he supplementary Awards referred to. The case of the workmen was that the appellant was running the canteen only because it was under an obligation to do so under the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder. Thus the running of the canteen was ain ordinary part of the undertaking of the appellant. It was admitted that the appellant did not run the canteen itself but halllded over the premises to the co-operative ·society to run the canteen for the use and welfare of. the mill's employees and discharge its legal obligations. The appellant denied the allegations
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.