STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus KGSD CANTEEN EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 03-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KGSD CANTEEN EMPLOYEES WELFARE 
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
JANUARY 3, 2006 
B 
[S.B.SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pay x'ale-Parity in- Claim of, by canteen employees with Governme1 .. c 
Servants-Entitlement of-Held: Members of canteen run by Committee cannot 
be equated with the Government Hospitality Organisation only because food 
is served and prepared by them-Canteen employees did not hold any post as 
\ 
sanctioned by State for canteen-They were not employees of State-Hence, 
not entitled to parity in scale-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14. 
D 
Regularization-Claim of canteen employees-Grant of, by High Court-
Justification of-Held: High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to frame a 
scheme by itself or direct framing of scheme for regularizing services of 
employees by State-Such scheme would not meet requirements of law-Action 
of State must conform to the constitutional requirements-<;onstitution of India, E 
1950-Articles 226, 14, 15, 16, 162 and 309 proviso. 
,( 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Disputed question of facts as 
to existence of employee and employer relation-If members of canteen run 
by committee constituted by State Government are employees oj State-Writ 
F 
petition-Maintainability of-Held: Recourse to writ remedy is not 
appropriate-Adjudication of such disputed question should be left to Industrial 
Court-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
A canteen was run through a Committee constituted by State 
Government for the welfare of the Secretariat employees. State G 
,. 
Government provided amenities and facilities for running the canteen. 
Grant-in-aid was also sanctioned from time to time. Committee also 
appointed employees on ad-hoc basis. Since the canteen was running under 
constant loss, the management committee tendered their resignation. 
Thereafter, Management of the canteen was handed over to the first 
93 
H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A respondent-State Government Secretariat Employees' Association. First 
respondent then sought regularization of their services as employees of 
State Government and also parity in pay scales with the State Government 
employees. Appellant-State rejected the claim. Single Judge of High Court 
holding that the canteen can be equated to the Government Hospitality 
B Organisation and the employees of the canteen are employees of State 
Government, directed regularization of services of employees. State filed 
an appeal. Division Bench of High Court modified the judgment of High 
Court with regard to the date of regularization of their services as also 
payment of back wages. Hence the present appeals. 
C 
Allowing the State Government's appeals and dismissing that of the 
canteen employees, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the case of this nature, where serious disputed question 
fact were raised, it was not proper for the High Court to embark 
thereupon an exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. High 
D Court relied upon number of decisions of this Court ignoring the fact that 
all such disputes were adjudicated in an industrial adjudication. High 
Court arrived at a finding that the Committee was merely a cloak of the 
Government and an arm of the State. When allegations are made that a 
body is a cloak and/or smoke screen or a camouflage, the adjudication of 
such a disputed question should be left to the Industrial Court. (110-A-CI 
E 
State Bank of India and Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen employees' 
Union (Bengal Circle) and Ors .. AIR (2000) SC 1518; Rourke/a Shramik 
Sangh v. Steel Authority of India and Anr .. [2003( 4 SCC 317; Workmen of 
Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd v. State of T.N. and Ors .. (2004( 3 SCC 514; 
F Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The A lath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode & Ors. 
(1978( 4 SCC 257; Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd. v. Coates 
of India Ltd & Ors .. [2004[ 3 SCC 547; U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd 
& Ors. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, (2004[ 4 SCC 268; 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. v. Zakir Hussain, (2005[ 7 
SCC 447; The Saraspur Mills Co.Ltd. v. Raman/al Chimanlal & Ors. (1974) 
G 3 SCC 66; Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of 
India & Ors .. ( 1995 ( Supp 2 SCC 611; Employees in relation to the 
Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen, [ 1996( 3 SCC 267; Indian 
Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Shramik Sena & Ors .. [1999( 6 SCC 439; 
India
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.