VST INDUSTRIES LTD. versus VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 07-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VST INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS' UNION AND ANR. ETC. 
DECEMBER 7, 2000 
B 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India- Article 226 ·Writ of mandamus on a public 
limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956-Held, writ 
C would not lie since the company, on facts, is not discharging any public duty. 
labour laws : 
Factories Act, 1948 Section 46- Entitlement of employees working in 
canteen run by contractors in a company s factory as employees of the 
D company and grant of monetary and other consequential benefits thereof-
Held, on facts, the employees to be treated as employees of the company. 
Appellant-company is engaged in manufacture and sale of cigarettes. A 
canteen is pr!Jvided in factory premises of the appellant pursuant to Section 
46 of the Factories Act, 1948. The appellant was managing the canteen till 
E 1982 and later the management of the canteen was given on contract to 
different contractors from time to time and the personnel employed in the 
canteen were retained and paid salaries through the contractors along with 
ESI and Provident Fund benefits. The appellant provided the necessary utilities 
to run the canteen having a control on quality of food and rates. Respondent-
union filed a petition before High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to treat 
F 
members of the union working in canteen of applicant's factory as regular 
employees of the appellant and for grant of monetary and consequential 
benefits thereby. Single Judge of the High Court held that a writ of mandamus 
would lie against a company as it is called upon to discharge a public duty 
under the Factories Act, 1948 and held that the personnel working in the 
G canteen are employees of the appellant and granted reliefs imposing certain 
restrictions. The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the Single Judge. 
In certain appeals, a Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal on 
this point. The Tribunal passed an award on facts that the workmen be treated 
as employees of the appellant, who are entitled to payment of appropriate scales 
H and designations with all consequential and attendant benefits of arrears of 
438 
-
VST INDUSTRIES LTD. 1•. VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION 
439 
pay, etc. together with counting of entire service for the purpose of terminal A 
benefits. Hence these appeals. 
The appellant contended that no writ would lie as the appellant is a 
company and not an authority or a person discharging any public duty. The 
appellant further contended that under the Petroleum Rules framed under 
the Petroleum Act, 1934, there are certain hazardous areas and a canteen B 
cannot be situated in those areas. 
Partly dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226 
would not be confined only to statutory authorities or instrumentalities of the C 
State but would cover any other person or body performing public duty. The 
form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the 
nature of the duty imposed on that body. The duty must be judged in the light 
of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to affected party, no matter 
by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists, mandamus D 
cannot be denied. (442-H, 443-A, BJ 
1.2. Manufacture and sale of cigarettes carried on by the appellant will 
not involve any public function. Incidental to that activity there is an obligation 
under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 to set up a canteen when the 
establishment has more than 250 workmen. It is a condition of service in E 
relation to a workman providing better facilities to workmen to discharge 
their duties properly and maintain their own health or welfare. It is only a 
labour welfare device for the benefit of its work force unlike a provision where 
Pollution Control Act makes it obligatory even on a private company not to 
discharge certain effluents. In such cases public duty is owed to the public in F 
general and not specific to any person or group of persons. Further the damage 
that would cause in not observing them is immense. lf a part of the conditions 
of service of a workman is violated there is no justification to hold that such 
activity will amount to public duty. Therefore, the High Court fell into error in 
saying that the appellant is amenable to writ jurisdiction.1445-G, H; 446-A, Bl 
1.3. On examination of the facts, there was a canteen wi

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