http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: EMPLOYEE IN RELATION TO THEMANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF IND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/02/1996

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1241            1996 SCC  (3) 267  JT 1996 (3)   226        1996 SCALE  (2)708

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T PARIPOORNAN,J.      Special leave granted. 2.   This appeal  is filed  by "Employers in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the  Bank") against  the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal  NO. 1  at Bombay  dated  28.2.1995  and rendered in Ref. No. CGIT-96 of 1991. The workmen engaged in the catering establishments of the bank is the respondent in this appeal. 3.   Government  of   India,  by  letter  dated  13.12.1991, referred  the   following  dispute  for  adjudication  under section 10(1) (d) read with sub-section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Tribunal:      "Whether 166  employees engaged  in      various catering  establishments of      the Reserve Bank of India at Bombay      are the workmen of the Reserve Bank      of  India?  If  so,  whether  their      demand  for   regularization   with      retrospective effect was justified?      If so, the extent of relief payable      to  these   166  persons   may   be      indicated." 4.   The employer  -- Reserve Bank of India is a Corporation established under  the Reserve  Bank of India Act, 1934 (No. 2) and vested with some sovereign functions such as issue of currency notes  etc. It  acts as Bankers’ Bank and as Banker to the  Central and  State Governments.  For carrying on the business, the  Bank employs various categories of staff such as Officers  (Class-I), (Class-II),  Clerks,  Stenographers, Typists etc.  (Class III)  and Peons,  Mazdoors etc. (Class- IV). The  Bank has  been providing canteen facilities to its employees in  Classes III  and IV. The Reserve Bank "Lounge"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

caters to  the needs  of its officers at some centers. There is no  obligation either under any statute or otherwise, for the Bank  to run  the canteens.  It is  so done  only  as  a welfare measure.  The Bank  bears by  way of  subsidy to the extent of  95% of  the costs  incurred by  the canteens  for payment of  salary, provident  fund contribution,  gratuity, uniform  etc.,   and  also   provides  premises,   fixtures, utensils,  furniture,   electricity,  water  etc.,  free  of charges. It  is seen  that the  canteens are  run either  by "Implementation  Committee   (Canteen  Committee)"  or  "Co- operative  Societies"  or  "contractors".  As  stated,  such canteens are  soley for  Class III and Class IV employees of the Bank.  The Bank  has its  office at Amar building, Fort, Bombay wherein  1500 employees  are working.  Similarly, the Bank has  its office at Bycula and another office at Bandra, Kurla Complex  Building. In  each of  the latter places 1000 persons are employed. 5.   It has  come out  in evidence that the constitution and functioning of  the aforesaid  canteens for  Class  III  and Class IV employees and functioning at Amar Building, Byculla Building and  Bandra, Kurla  Complex Building are different. The canteen at Amar Building is managed by an Implementation Committee (Canteen  Committee). It is functioning ever since 1959. The canteen Committee consists of four representatives from the Class IV employees Union, five representatives from the Class III employees Union and three representatives from the Bank.  The three  representatives of  the Bank  are  the Currency Officer, Personnel Officer and the Officer from the Personal Policy  Department. The  Currency Officer is always the Chairman  of the Canteen Committee. About 77 workmen are employed in the said canteen.      At Byculla  the Bank is running a canteen through a Co- operative  Society  since  1989.  25  workmen  are  employed therein. One  of the  employees of the Bank, who is a member of the Managing Committee of the Society, is relieved of his work for  the whole  day to lock after or supervise the work of the  canteen. The Bank reimburses the Society the charges incurred for  getting  the  licences  under  the  Shops  and Establishments Act. Prior permission of the Bank is required to increases the strength of the employees.      In the Bank office at Bandra, Kurla Complex and the one situate at  New Central  office building canteen contractors are engaged. In the Bandra Kurla Complex/Building, M/s. N.T. Shetty the  contractor has  employed 21  persons. In the new Central Office  building, the  contractor M/s.  Alva Caterer has employed  35  persons.  (The  total  number  of  persons employed in  all the canteens amount to only 158, though the case has  proceeded  on  the  basis  that  there  are  ’166’ persons). 6.   The point  at issue  between the parties is whether the persons  working  in  the  various  canteens  aforesaid  are employees of  the Reserve  Bank of  India. The  plea of  the Federation on  behalf of  the workmen  is that  the Bank  is under a  statutory obligation to provide canteen facility to the employees  and the  same is  being done through agencies such as  Implementation Committee  (Canteen Committee),  Co- operative Society  and contractor  instead of the Bank doing it on  its own  by employing  persons directly. On behalf of the workmen,  it was  further contended that the Bank cannot shift its responsibility to others, that the entire economic control is  With the bank and so the worker. employed in all these canteens,  whether by  the Implementation Committee or by the  Co-operative Societies  or by the contractors should be directed  to be  absorbed with  retrospective effect with point to  point adjustment  and the  Bank be directed to pay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

difference of wages. 7.   The Bank  disputed the  claim made by the Federation on behalf of  the workmen. It was contended that the Bank makes available space  for  running  the  canteens  on  leave  and licence basis  and various  facilities are  also provided to the Implementation  Committee, Co-operative  Society or  the contractor, whosoever  runs the canteen. The canteens are in the nature  of clubs.  The management  of the  Bank  is  not responsible for  employment  of  persons  in  the  canteens. Persons  serving   in  the  canteens  are  employed  by  the Implementation Committee,  the Co-operative  Society or  the Contractor, as the case may be.      The Bank  does not  supervise or control the working of the canteens  or the  supply of  eatables to  employees. The employees are  not under  an obligation to purchase eatables from the  canteen. There  is no  relationship of  master and servant between the Bank and the various persons employed in the canteens aforesaid. The Bank does not carry any trade or business in the canteens. The staff canteens are established only as a welfare measure. Similar demands made by the staff canteen employees  and  the  request  made  to  the  Central Government  to   refer  the  dispute  for  adjudication  was rejected by the Central Government and the challenge against the same  before the  Calcutta High  Court was unsuccessful. According  to  the  Bank,  it  has  no  statutory  or  other obligation to  run the canteens and it has no direct control or supervision  over the  employees engaged in the canteens. It has no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct any  canteen   employee  to   do  a   particular  work.  The disciplinary  control  over  the  persons  employed  in  the canteens does  not vest in the Bank nor has the Bank any say or control  regarding the  allocation of  work or the way in which the  work  is  carried  out  by  the  said  employees. Sanctioning of  leave, distribution  of work, maintenance of the  Attendance   Register  are   all  done  either  by  the Implementation Committee  (Canteen Committee)  or by the Co- operative Society or by the contractor. 8.   The Tribunal,  on the  basis of the materials available before it  and on hearing the parties, held that 166 persons mentioned in the list attached to the reference and employed in various  canteens are  employees of  the Reserve  Bank of India and  they are  entitled to  appropriate relief in that behalf.  An   award  was  passed  affording  relief  to  166 employees working  in the  various canteens in the following terms:      "From the  nature of  the work that      is  being   performed  by  the  166      persons  mentioned   in  the   list      attached to  the  reference  it  is      seen  that   they  have  comparable      employees employed  in the Officers      lounge. The  exercise of fitting of      these   166    employees   in   the      corresponding categories  will have      to be  carried out  by the  Reserve      Bank of  India, that they will have      to be paid difference in ways which      they would  have earned  and  which      they have been paid. As can be seen      from  the   Annexure  ’A’   to  the      statement    of    claim    certain      categories of employees are clubbed      together for  the purposes  of  pay      scale. The Assistant cook, tea boys      &  farash  is  one  such  clubbing,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

    Supervisor  and   coupon  clerk  is      another. ...  ... ...  ... ...  ...      ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...      ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...      The just direction in my view would      be that  they will  be entitled  to      absorption and  difference in  back      wages with effect from 1st of March      1995. In  respect of  employees who      are working  in  the  canteens  run      through the  contractors they  will      be entitled  to  the  benefit  with      effect from the date the respective      contracts come to an end." It is  the aforesaid  award that  is assailed by the Bank in this appeal filed by Special Leave. 9.   A perusal  of the  award passed  by the  Tribunal as  a whole shows, that in its view the plea raised by the workmen employed in  various canteens clearly falls within the ratio laid down  by this  Court in  M.M.R. Khan  v. Union of India [1990 (Supp.)  SCC 191]  and so  they are  entitled  to  the reliefs prayed  for. We  are of  the view  that the Tribunal misread and misunderstood the decision in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra) and  has misapplied  the ratio laid down in the said decision to  the instant  case. Therefore,  a review  of the said decision  and the  extent to  which the  principles  or ratio laid  down therein can be said to be applicable in the instant case  calls for  a detailed  analysis and  we  shall advert to the said aspect a little later. 10.  One aspect  is clear.  The Reserve  Bank of  India (the bank) is  under no  statutory or  other legal  obligation to provide canteen  facilities to  its employees.  The Tribunal has not  found any such statutory or legal obligation in the Bank. That  apart, we  have to  bear in  mind the  following salient feature in the matter of recruitment of staff by the Banks. It  is a  well known  fact that  recruitment of staff (inclusive of  class-IV) to the banks is done by a Selection Board, and  there are  guidelines governing  the process  of selection. So also in the case of Reserve Bank of India, the process of  selection and  recruitment of  the staff is by a different   Board   and   appropriate   qualifications   are prescribed for  the particular posts. In the case of persons employed in  the canteens, they are not subject to the rigor and discipline  of the above rules and methods of selection. This distinguishing  feature is relevant in adjudicating the controversy raised  herein. The  Tribunal has  held that (1) Regarding canteens  run by the Implementation Committee, the Bank exercises  "remote control",  which is  as effective as any, (para  26 of the award); (2) Regarding the canteens run by Co-operative  Societies, the  Tribunal has held that they are non-statutors  but recognised canteens and by nominating the  representative   of  the  bank  to  the  Committee,  it exercises control  (para 28 of the Award); (3) Regarding the canteens  run   by   contractors,   "non-statutory",   "non- recognised  canteens",  in  the  absence  of  distinguishing features highlighted  in para  38  of  the  decision  M.M.R. Khan’s case  (supra), they  could be  said to be "recognised canteens" by  the Bank  and  the  persons  employed  by  the contractors are  also entitled to the benefit similar to the one afforded  to persons employed in the canteens run by the Implementation Committee and Co-operative pocieties (para 32 of the award). The question that falls for our consideration is whether  the aforesaid  view of the Tribunal is justified in law,  holding that  the instant  case is  covered by  the decision of this Court in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

11.  The test  to determine  as to  whether a  person  is  a workman and the relationship of master and servant exists in a particular  case has  been laid  down  by  this  Court  in innumerable decisions.  In one  of the  earliest oft  quoted cases,  Dharangadhra   Chemical  Works   Ltd.  v.  State  of Saurashtra and  others (AIR  1957 SC  264),  delivering  the judgment of  the four-member  Bench, Bhagwati, J. considered in detail  the various  decisions on the point and laid down the law thus:      "The principle  which emerges  from      these authorities is that the Prima      facie test for the determination of      the relationship between master and      servant is  the  existence  of  the      right in  the master  to  supervise      and control  the work  done by  the      servant not  only in  the matter of      directing what  work the servant is      to do  but also the manner in which      he shall  do his  work or to borrow      the words  of Lord  Uthwatt at page      23  in  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour      Board   v.   Coggins   &   Griffith      (Liverpool) Ltd.,  1947-I AC  1, at      page 23(E),  "The  proper  test  is      whether  or   not  the   hirer  had      authority to  control the manner of      execution of the act in question."           The  nature   or   extent   of      control  which   is  requisite   to      establish   the   relationship   of      employer    and    employee    must      necessarily vary  from business  to      business and  is by its very nature      incapable of precise definition.      ...            ...              ...           The    correct    method    of      approach, therefore,  would  be  to      consider whether  having regard  to      the nature  of the  work there  was      due control  and supervision by the      employer"............"                      (Emphasis supplied) In the  case of  persons employed  in the canteens, they are not subject  to the rigour and discipline of the above rules and methods  of selection.  This distinguishing  feature  is relevant in  adjudicating the controversy raised herein. The Tribunal has  held that  (1) Regarding  canteens run  by the Implementation  Committee,   the  Bank   Exercises   "remote control", which  is as  effective as  any, (para  26 of  the award); (2)  Regarding  the  canteens  run  by  Co-operative Soceities, the Tribunal had held that they are non-statutory but recognised canteens and by nominating the representative of the  bank to the Committee, it exercises control (para 28 of  the   Award);  (3)   Regarding  the   canteens  run   by contractors, "non-statutory",  "non-recognised canteens", in the absence  of distinguishing  features highlighted in para 38 of the decision M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra), they could be said to  be ":recognised  canteens"  by  the  Bank  and  the persons employed by the contractors are also entitled to the benfit similar  to the  one afforded  to persons employed in the canteens  run by  the Implementation  Committee and  Co- operative socieities  (para 32  of the  award). The question that falls  for our  consideration is  whether the aforesaid view of  hte Tribunal  is justified in law, holding that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

instant case  is covered  by the  decision of  this Court in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra). The above  decision was  followed by a three member Bench in Chintaman Rao  v. State  of M.P.  (AIR 1958 SC 388). In this decision the  Court also observed at page 392, paragraph 10, thus:           "There is, therefore, a clear-      cut    distinction     between    a      contractor  and   a  workman.   The      identifying mark  of the  latter is      that he should be under the control      and supervision  of the  employe in      respect  of   the  details  of  the      work."                      (Emphasis supplied) In Management  of  M/s.  Puri  Urban  Co-operative  Bank  v. Madhusudhan Sahu  [1992(2) SCR 977], delivering the judgment on behalf  of the  Bench, Punchhi,  J. at  page  980,  after referring to the aforesaid decisions, stated thus:           "It  stands  established  that      Industrial law revolves on the axis      of master  and servant relationship      and by  a catena  of precedents  it      stands established  that the  prima      facie  test   of  relationship   of      master and servant is the existence      of  the  right  in  the  master  to      supervise and control the work done      by  the  servant  (the  measure  of      supervision and  control apart) not      only in  the  matter  of  directing      what work  the servant is to do but      also the  manner in  which he shall      do his  work.  And  this  Principle      holds the field".                      (Emphasis supplied) 12. In  applying the  law laid down by this Court, as stated above, we  should distinguish  those line  of cases, where a statutory liability  is cast on the employer for maintaining the canteen  viz. as  per Section 46 of the Factories Act or due to  the extended  meaning given to the definition of the word ’employer’  in the particular statute, any other person like a  contractor to  whom an  owner of the undertaking had entrusted the  execution of  any work  which was  ordinarily part of  an undertaking or industry was also covered. See in this  connection    Saraspur  Mills  Co.  Ltd.  v.  Ramanlal Chimanlal [1974(3) SCC 66] and Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Ujagar (AIR  1964 SC  355). We should at once state that the principles laid  down in  those line  of cases  cannot apply herein, since  admittedly (a) no statutory liability is cast on the Bank to run a canteen and Section 46 of the Factories Act is  inapplicable herein; and (b) the Industrial Disputes Act does  not contain  an extended  definition of  the  word employer’. 13.  We heard Mr. Salve, Senior Counsel who appeared for the appellants and Mr. Tarkunde, Senior Counsel who appeared for the respondent. 14.  We Shall  now advert  to the  decision of this Court in M.M.R.Khan’s  case  (supra)  to  understand  its  scope  and effect. In  the said  case, the  court was  dealing with the workers  in   canteens  run   in   the   different   railway establishments. The  workers claimed  that  they  should  be treated as  "railway employees"  and should  be extended all service  conditions  which  are  available  to  the  railway employees. The  court classified  the  canteens  into  three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

categories: (1)  Statutory Canteens which are required to be provided compulsorily in view of section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948;  (2) Non-statutory  Recognised  Canteens  -  such canteens  are   established  with  the  prior  approval  and recognition of  the  Railway  Board  as  per  the  procedure detailed in  the Rail was Establishment Manual; and (3) Non- statutory  Non-recognised  Canteens  -  these  are  canteens established without the prior approval or recognition of the Railway Board.      Category No.1:  statutory Canteens: This Court in Civil Appeal No.  368 of  1978 dated  22.10.1980 had held that the employees in  the statutory  canteens were railway employees for the  purpose of the Factories Act. In the said decision, this Court  declined to  interfere with the rejection of the demand of  the workers  for pay and allowances to them as if they were  railway employees.  As  a  result  of  subsequent orders passed  by the  government,  Railway  Board  and  the decision of  this Court  and instructions of the department, it became  evident that  the government has complete control over the  canteens and  the workers  employed therein became holders of  civil posts within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.  Their recruitment  and service conditions are governed by the rules applicable to the employees of the government  department/office/establishment   to  which  the canteens  are   attached.  In  this  background,  the  Court adverted in  detail to  the various  government  orders  and circulars of  the Railway  Board vis-a-vis section 45 of the Factories Act  and held that the employees in the "statutory canteens" of  the  railways  will  have  to  be  treated  as "railway  servants".   It  was  further  observed  that  the employees in  the statutory  canteens are  entitled  to  the status of railway employees and they are entitled to succeed in their claim purely on facts peculiar to them discussed in the judgment.      Dealing  with   the  second  category  -  "Nonstatutory Recognised Canteens",  the Court adverted to paragraphs 2831 to 2834  of the  Railway Establishment  Manual and held that the aforesaid  provisions enjoin  the Railway Administration to take  steps to  develop their canteen organization to the maximum possible  extent  as  a  measure  of  staff  welfare preferably by  encouraging the  development of  canteens for staff on  co-operative basis.  This mandate was stated to be in addition  to the  canteens required  to be established by the Factories  Act. On a review of the various provisions of the Railway  Establishment Manual  the details  whereof were adverted to  in paragraphs  31 to  35 of  the judgment)  and proceedings of  courts, it  was hand  in paragraph 36 of the judgment that  there is  hardly any  difference between  the statutory canteens  and non-statutory  recognised  canteens. Detailed provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual were highlighted to  show that the obligations of the Board under the Manual are substantially similar to those enjoined under the Factories Act and no distinction can be made between the employees of the two types of canteens -- statutory canteens and non-statutory  recognised canteens  -- so  far as  their service conditions  are concerned.  So, it  was further held that the  employees in the non-statutory recognised canteens should be  treated on  par,  with  those  employees  in  the statutory canteens  and  they  should  be  treated  for  all purposes as railway servants.      Dealing with  the category  of persons  employed in the "non-statutory non-recognised  canteens", in paragraph 38 of the judgment, this Court highlighted the fact that they were not started with the prior approval of the Board as required under paragraph  2831 of  the Railway  Establishment Manual.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

They are  not required  to be  managed  either  as  per  the provisions  of  the  Railway  Establishment  Manual  or  the administrative instructions.  There is  no obligation on the railway administration to provide them with any facility nor are they  given any subsidy or loan. The canteens are run by private contractors and there is ne continuity either of the contractors or the workers engaged by them. There is further no obligation  cast even  on the local officers to supervise the working  of these  canteens, there  existed no rules for recruitment of the workers and their service conditions, and the  canteens  are  run  on  ad  hoc  basis;  and  in  these circumstances it  was held  that he workers engaged in these canteens are not entitled to claim the status of the railway servants. 15.  We have  held earlier  that there  is no  statutory  or other  obligation   for  the   bank  to  run  canteens.  The provisions of  the Factories  Act do  not apply.  So, we are only  concerned  with  categories  2  and  3  (Non-statutory Recognised   Canteens   and   Non-Statutory   Non-recognised Canteens) dealt  with in  M.M R.  Khan’s  case  (supra).  It should be remembered that the plea of the canteen workers of three categories in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra) was that they were railway  servants. With  regard  to  the  Non-statutory Recognised  Canteens,   on  an  appraisal  of  the  relevant paragraphs  of   the  Railway   Establishment  Manual,   the notifications and circulars issued by the Board from time to time and  the orders  passed by courts, this Court held that there  is   hardly  any  difference  between  the  statutory canteens  and   Nonstatutory  Recognised   Canteens  and  no distinction is  possible between  the employees  of the  two types of  canteens so  far as  their service  conditions are concerned. Indeed  in a  later decision  of  this  Court  in Parimal Chandra Raha vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (JT 1995  (3) SC  288) at  page 304,  in paragraph 26 of the judgment, this Court highlighted the fact that M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra)  which  had  decided  the  claim  of  the  Non- statutory Recognised  Canteens was  decided on  the facts of that  case   including  the   provisions  of  the    Railway Establishment  Manual,  the  notifications  and    circulars issued by  the Railway  Board from  time to  time and  other documents. The  non-statutory recognised  canteens were also to be  on par  with the  statutory   canteens in view of the mandate contained  in paragraphs 2830 to 2834 of the Railway Establishment Manual.  In   our opinion,  the said reasoning and conclusion  of this  Court in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra) rested on its own facts. 16. Similarly,  dealing with the plea of the various persons engaged in  the non-statutory  non recognised canteens, that they are entitled to get the status of the railway servants, it should be stated that the plea was negatived in paragraph 38 of  the judgment  by reference  to the  provisions of the Railway  Establishment   Manual  and   other  administrative instructions. Here  again the  decision rested  on  its  own facts. 17.  Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the canteen employees the decision  of the  Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta Ref.No. 63/75 in a matter between the State Bank of India  and their  workmen and  the decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P. 933/90 were relied on as supporting their plea. On  the other hand, the Bank relied on the decision of the Calcutta  High Court  in  civil  order  No.  11488/W/83, wherein the  plea of  the employees of Co-operative canteens as workmen  of the  Reserve Bank  of India was rejected, for reference. A  decision of  the Bombay  High Court  in  W  P. 610/82 to  similar effect was also relied on. We do not have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

all the  relevant papers  and documents as also the complete text of  the decision  in  those  cases  to  appreciate  the reasoning and conclusion arrived at in those cases. So we do not propose  to deal  with them. If at all, it is the latter decisions of  Calcutta and  Bombay High Courts which seem to be more in point. 18. Now  we have  to examine the reasons which persuaded the Tribunal in  this case  to hold  that the instant case falls within the  ratio laid  down by  this Court in M.M.R. Khan’s case (Supra).  In all  the  three  different  categories  of canteens --  canteens run  by the  implementation  committee (Canteen Committee), Co- operative Societies and Contractors -- the  Bank was  making grants  by way of subsidy at 95% of the costs  incurred by  the canteens  for payment of salary, P.F. contribution, gratuity, Uniform etc., besides providing fuel, water,  fixtures,  utensils,  furniture,  electricity, premises  etc.,   free  of  charge.  We  will  take  up  the individual facts  highlighted by  the Tribunal in respect of the different  categories of  canteens.  When  the  question between the  employees in  relation to Reserve Bank of India and their  class III  workmen came  up  before  Justice  Sri Dinghe on  a reference, on an earlier occasion, the Bank had submitted that  adequate canteen facilities are available to the employees  of the  Bank and  that the  Bank has provided facilities in  that regard. Regarding the canteen run by the Implementation Committee  (Canteen Committee), out of the 12 representatives 3  of them are from the bank -- the Currency Officer, Personnel Officer and the Officer from the Personal Policy  Department.  The  Currency  Officer  is  always  the Chairman of  the Canteen  Committee. The  Bank relieved four employees who are in the Committee, two for full day and two for half  day to  supervise the  day to  day affairs  of the canteen. The  committee cannot  increase the strength of the canteen employees  without the  permission of  the bank. The rates of  the eatables  also cannot  be revised  without the consent of the Manager. They cannot effect any wage revision without  the   approval  of  the  Bank.  The  Bank  is  also reimbursing  the   expenses  incurred  over  the  periodical medical check  up cf  the employees  attached to the kitchen and counters. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the case  clearly falls  within the  ratio laid down by this court  in   M.M.R.  Khan’s  case  (supra),  since  the  Bank exercises "remote  control" which is as effective as any. As against the  above aspects,  the fact remains that according to the Bank it has only a limited role to play regarding the functioning of  the committee  and do  not have  any control whatsoever on  the employees engaged by the committee so far as taking  of disciplinary  action  against  any  particular employee is  concerned. The  Bank has further brought out in cross-examination of  the employees’ representative that the recruitment of  the workers  for the  canteen is made by the Canteen Committee,  and the attendance record as well as the sanctioning  of   leave  to  the  workers  is  done  by  the committee. It was also brought out in evidence that the only role played  by the  Bank in  the running of the canteen was the nomination  of the three members to the committee. It is common ground  that the  canteen run  by the  Implementation Committee  (Canteen   Committee)  is  not  under  any  legal obligation as  was the  case in  M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra). Moreover, there  is no  right in  the Bank  to supervise and control the  work  done  by  the  persons  employed  in  the committee nor has the Bank any right to direct the manner in which the  work shall  be done  by various persons. The Bank has absolutely  no right  to take any disciplinary action or to direct any canteen employee to do a particular work. Even

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

according to the Tribunal, the Bank exercises only a ’remote control’. We  are of  the view  that in  the absence  of any obligation statutory or otherwise regarding the running of a canteen by the Bank and the details relating thereto similar to Factories Act or the Railway Establishment Manual, and in the absence  of any  effective or direct control in the Bank to supervise  and control  the work done by various persons, the  workers  in  the  canteen  run  by  the  Implementation Committee (Canteen  Committee) cannot  come within the ratio laid down by this Court in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra). 19.  We shall  now take  up the  case of canteens run by the Co-operative  Societies.   Apart  from  subsidy,  and  other matters provided  free of  charge like  water,  electricity, premises, furniture  etc., the  Tribunal has adverted to the fact that  the licence renewal charges paid by the committee are reimbursed  by the  Bank. Neither  the strength  of  the workmen employed,  nor the  wages can be revised without the prior sanction  of the  Bank and so these canteens, are non- statutory recognized  canteens, and  there is direct control exercised  by  the  Bank  in  the  form  of  nominating  the representative of  the Bank. Here again none of the peculiar aspects adverted  to by  this Court  in M.M.R.  Khan’s  case (supra) regarding  the non-statutory recognized canteens are present.  The   mere  fact   that  the  Bank  nominates  its representative  the  committee  or  reimburses  the  licence renewal charges  will not  in any  way  provide  any  direct control. 20.  we will  now take  up the  matter  regarding  the  non- statutory non-recognised  cnateens.  In  dealing  with  this matter, the  Tribunal has  referred to  the various  aspects stressed in  paragraph 38  of the  judgment in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra)  that  the  workmen  therein  are  not  railway servants.  The   Tribunal  has  adverted  to  the  agreement executed  between   the  Bank   and  the  contractor  which, according to  it, will show that the distinguishing features mentioned in  M.M.R. Khan’s  case (supra) are not present in this case.  It may  be so.  That leads  us  to  no  positive conclusion  regarding  the  matter  at  issue.  As  per  the agreement the  bank  has  detailed  the  subsidy  and  other facilities afforded  by it  to run  the canteen  and ha also stipulated certain  conditions necessary  for conducting the canteen  in  a  good,  hygenic  and  efficient  manner  like insistence  of   the  quality   of  food,  supply  of  food, engagement of  experienced persons  etc. Such conduct cannot in any  manner point  out any  obligation  in  the  Bank  to provide "canteen"  as wrongly assumed by the Tribunal. Since the distinguishing  features mentioned in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra) are  not present  in this  case, the  Tribunal by  a negative process  was  inclined  to  hold  that  though  the canteens may  be non-statutory and non-recongised in nature, they ’could be said to be’ non-statutory recognised ones and so they  will be  entitled to  get all the benefits like the recognised canteens.  This is a wrong approach to the issue. We have  already held that non-statutory recognised canteens in the  instant case  are not  similar to  the non-statutory recognised  canteens   considered  in   M.M.R.  Khan’s  case (supra). If  the workers  in  the  non-statutory  recognised canteens themselves cannot be considered to be workmen under the Bank,  by the  same token,  the workers  employed by the contractors, even  if they are considered to be nonstatutory recognised canteens  as held  by the  Tribunal, will  not be entitled to  get any benefit. It is only by holding that the canteens run  by contractors  are similar  to  non-statutory recognised  canteens,   the  Tribunal  has  given  the  same benefit, as  was given  to the  workmen  in  the  recognised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

canteens. It should also be noticed that the various factors noticed in  paragraph 38  of the  judgment in  M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra) were adverted to by this Court to deny the plea that the  canteen workers  "are not railway servants" in the context of  the various  provisions contained in the Railway Establishment Manual  and other documents. The said decision rested on its own facts. 21.  We, therefore,  hold that  the assumption  made by  the Tribunal that  the instant  case clearly  falls  within  the ratio laid down by this Court in M.M.R. Khan’s case (supra), is totally  unjustified and  incorrect. On the facts of this case, in  the  absence  of  any  statutory  or  other  legal obligation and  in the  absence of  any right in the Bank to supervise and control the work or the details thereof in any manner regarding  the canteen  workers employed in the three types of  canteens, it  cannot be said that the relationship of master  and servant  existed between  the  Bank  and  the various persons  employed in  three types  of canteens.  166 persons mentioned  in the list attached to the reference are not workmen  of the  Reserve Bank of India and that they are not comparable  employees employed  in the  officers lounge. Therefore, the  demand for  regularization is  unsustainable and they  are not  entitled to  any relief. We hold that the award passed  by  the  Tribunal  is  factually  and  legally unsustainable. 22.  Before concluding  the case,  we should  advert to  the decision of  this Court  reported in Parimal Chand a Raha v. Life Insurance  Corporation of  India (Supra) brought to our notice. Both  sides extensively referred to this judgment to reinforce  their   plea.  After  adverting  to  the  earlier decisions, this Court has summarized the law in paragraph 27 of the impugned thus:      "What emerges  from the statute law      and the  judicial decisions  is  as      follows:      (i) Where,  as under the provisions      of  the   Factories  Act,   it   is      statutorily   obligatory   on   the      employer to  provide and   maintain      canteen  for   the   use   of   his      employees, the  canteen  becomes  a      part  of   the  establishment  and,      therefore, the  workers employed in      such canteen  are the  employees of      the management.      (ii)  Where,  although  it  is  not      statutorily obligatory to provide a      canteen,   it   is   otherwise   an      obligation on   the    employer  to      provide  a   canteen,  the  canteen      becomes a part of the establishment      and  the  workers  working  in  the      canteen,  the   employees  of   the      management.   The   obligation   to      provide  a     canteen  has  to  be      distinguished from  the  obligation      to  provide   facilities   to   run      canteen. The  canteen run pursuance      to the  latter obligation, does not      become a part of the establishment.      (iii)  The  obligation  to  provide      canteen   may    be   explicit   or      implicit. Where  the obligation  is      not explicitly  accepted by or cast      upon  the  employer  either  by  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

    agreement or  an award etc., it may      be inferred from the circumstances,      and the  provision of  the  canteen      may be  held to  have become a part      of the  service conditions  of  the      employees.  Whether  the  provision      for canteen  services has  become a      part of  the service  conditions or      not, is  a question  of fact  tc be      determined   on   the   facts   and      circumstances in each case.           Where   to   provide   canteen      services has  become a  part of the      service    conditions     of    the      employees, the  canteen  becomes  a      part of  the establishment  and the      workers in  such canteen become the      employees of the management.      (iv) Whether  a particular facility      or service  has become implicitly a      part of  the service  conditions of      the employees  or not, will depend,      among others,  on the nature of the      serivce/facility, the  contribution      the service  in question  makes  to      the efficiency of the employees and      the  establishment,   whether   the      service is available as a matter of      right to all the employees in their      capacity as  employees and  nothing      more,  the   number  of   employees      employed in  the establishment  and      the number  of employees  who avail      of the  service, the length of time      for  which  the  service  has  been      continuously available,  the  hours      during which  it is  available  the      nature and character of management,      the interest  taken by the employer      in     providing,      maintaining,      supervising  and   controlling  the      service, the  contribution made  by      the  management   in  the  form  of      infrastructure and funds for making      the service available etc." Counsel  for   the  appellant   Mr.  Salve   submitted  that propositions No.  3 and  4 contained  in paragraph 27 of the judgment are  very  wide  and  require  reconsideration  and appropriate modification,  whereas Mr. Tarkunde, Counsel for respondents submitted that propositions No. 3 and 4 May down the law  correctly. It  is unnecessary, on the facts of this case, to  consider to  what extent  propositions No. 3 and 4 require to  be clarified or modified, since in this case the Tribunal has  proceeded only  on the  basis that the instant case clearly  falls within the ratio laid down by this Court in M.M.R.  Khan’s case  (supra), which  we have  held  is  a totally wrong  perspective. In  these circumstances,  we are not called  upon to  consider the  rival pleas regarding the scope and  ambit of  propositions No.  3 and  4 contained in para 27  of the  Judgment in  Parimal  Chandra  Raha’s  case (Supra).      We set  aside the  award passed  by the  Tribunal. This appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13