http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: G.B.  PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY, PANTNAGAR,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VSState of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/08/2000

BENCH: S.B.  Majumdar, J.  & Umesh C.  Banerjee, J.

JUDGMENT:

BANERJEE, J. L....I..........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J      Redressal  of  grievances of the Cafeteria  workers  in Govind   Ballabh   Pant  University   of   Agriculture   and Technology,  Nanital by reason of an award of the  Presiding Officer,   Labour  Court,  Haldwani,   Uttar   Pradesh   and subsequent  confirmation thereof by the High Court  prompted the  University  to  move this Court in Appeal  against  the same.

    G.B.   Pant  Univerisity of Agriculture and  technology established  under  U.P.  Agricultural University Act,  1958 happens  to  be  a residential University  having  about  14 hostels  to  provide  accommodation to the  students  and  a Cafeteria  to provide food services to the residents of  the hostels  and others.  There are about 170 employees  working in  these  Cafeterias and these are the employees who  claim regularisation  of the services as regular employees of  the University  which, however, stands negated by the University authority.   The records depict that by reason of refusal to accept  such  a claim, the disputes were referred under  two separate  References  in terms of Section 4(k) of the  Uttar Pradesh  Industrial Disputes Act in November 1991 which were registered as Reference No.141 of 1991 and 142 of 1991.  The Labour  Court upon acceptance of the claim of the  employees in no uncertain terms found the entitlement of the employees of  Cafeteria  and  declared the latter to  be  the  regular employees  of the University from the date of the award  and held  entitled to receive the same salary and other benefits as  the  other  regular employees of  the  University.   The University  however, being aggrieved by the award moved  two Writ  Petitions by way of challenges to the two awards under Article  226 of the Constitution.  The High Court also on  a detailed  scrutiny of the Regulations and other materials on record dismissed the Writ Petitions with an observation that the  impugned  award  of  the  Labour  Court  are  perfectly justified  in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not suffer from any error of law.  It is this order which is under  challenge in this Appeal being Civil Appeal  No.13087 of   1996  and  13089  of   1996  (G.B.Pant  University   of Agriculture  and  Technology, Nainital Vs.  State  of  Uttar Pradesh and Others).

    There  cannot  possibly be any doubt  that  socialistic concept  of  the society as laid down in Part III and IV  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

the  Constitution ought to be implemented in the true spirit of  the  Constitution.   Decisions are there of  this  Court galore  wherein this Court on more occasions than one stated that  democratic  socialism aims to end poverty,  ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunity.  In D.S.Nakaras case (1983  1 SCC 305) as also lately in Secretary, H.S.E.B.   v. Suresh  &  Ors.  etc.  etc.  (1999 3 SCC 601), the same  has been  well  pronounced and we need not dilate on that  score any further.

    Mr.   Trivedi, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing   in  support  of   the  Appeals  rather  strongly contended  that the High Court has totally misconstrued  the Regulations  framed  under  the Statute  pertaining  to  the Hostel and Cafeteria (Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations under U.P.Agriculture  University  Act, 1958) and rather  after  a longish  narration  of the Regulations contended that it  is not  the University which has any control over the employees of  the Cafeteria but the Food Committee which has  specific role  in  the  matter  of  management  and  control  of  the cafeteria  and since there exists no evidence whatsoever  on record  that  the  employees working in the  cafeteria  were appointed   by  the  University  in  accordance   with   the provisions  contained  in  the  Act or  the  statute  framed thereunder,  question  of there being any master  -  servant relationship would not arise.  It is in this context also it has  been contended by Mr.  Additional Solicitor that  there is no budgetary allocation provided in the University Budget to  meet  the  expenses on account of the  salaries  of  the Cafeteria  employees and as such, question of the  Cafeteria employees being termed to be the employees of the University would not arise.  Strong reliance was placed on the decision of  this  Court  in All India  Railway  Institute  Employees Association  v.   Union of India ( 1990 2 SCC  549)  wherein this Court observed:

    12.   By their very nature further the services of the Institutes/Clubs  are availed of beyond working hours  only. It  is common knowledge that not all members of the  railway staff  avail  of them.  One has to be a member to do  so  by paying  fees.  The membership is also optional.  That is why most  of the staff employed in the Institutes/Clubs is  part time.   As has been stated by the respondents, out of  about 1741  employees  engaged  in 499 Institutes  and  332  Clubs nearly  half are part time employees.  The services rendered by  the  employees  are not of a uniform nature.   They  are engaged  for  different  services   with  different  service conditions    according    to     the   requirement.     The Institutes/Clubs   further   do  not   engage   in   uniform activities,  the  activities  conducted   by  them   varying depending  upon  the  infrastructure   and  the   facilities available at the respective places.

    13.   What  is  more  important as  far  as  the  issue involved  in  this  petition  is   concerned,  is  that  the provisions  of the Institutes/Clubs is not mandatory.   They are  established  as a part of the welfare measure  for  the railway  staff  and  the  kind of  activities  they  conduct depend,  among other things, on the funds available to them. The  activities have to be tailored to the budgets since  by their very nature the funds are not only limited but keep on fluctuating.   If the costs of the activities go beyond  the means, they have to be curtailed.  So also, while starting a new  activity,  it  is necessary to take  into  account  its financial   implications   and    the    capacity   of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Institute/Club  to  raise  the necessary  funds.   The  only varying  component of the funds is the membership fee  which is uncertain.

    The  facts of the matter under consideration are rather a  pointer  to the material difference between the  canteens run  in  the Railways Establishment and that of the  Railway Institute  and  Clubs.  This Court on a very  poignant  note observed  that canteen services are no longer looked upon as a  mere  welfare  activity but as an  essential  requirement where  sizeable number of employees work, this Court went on to  record  that the same however, cannot be said to  be  of Institutes and Clubs.

    While  the Appellants contention is, as noticed above, the  Respondents contended that the under the provisions  of the  Act  and Statute, it is obligatory on the  students  to reside  in hostel and avail of food services and there being an obligation to provide food services to the inmates of the hostel,  the Cafeteria is maintained and the obligations  of the  University cannot be run down.  Mr.  Gupta, the learned Advocate  appearing  for  the  Respondent  No.3  strenuously contended  that  there  is  per se  a  statutory  and  legal obligation  and the University authorities are under a  duty to  maintain  residential accommodation, promote the  health and  welfare  of  the  students, make  housing  and  messing arrangement and the existence of Cafeteria together with its staff members cannot but be a part of such accommodation and arrangements.   Strong reliance has also been placed on  the Regulations  for  their true purport, scope and effect.   We find  substance in the submission of Mr.  Gupta.  A  perusal of  the  Regulations  as  framed  under  the  statute  (U.P. Agricultural  University  Act) unmistakably depict that  the twin  conventional tests of implicit obligation and  factors of over all control and supervision by the University stands satisfied  and the legal responsibility cannot be shifted to the  students as is sought to be contended.  Reliance by Mr. Trivedi  on to the Regulations 48,49,64,65,67,68,69,78,86,92 and  93 though apparently may have some relevance pertaining to  the  issue, but reading the Regulations as a  whole,  it cannot  be doubted that the same are only framed for  moral, persuasive  and  democratic  reasons so as  to  involve  the students  and to elicit their views, suggestions and  ensure their participation in mutual exercise of co-operation.  We, however,  feel  it expedient to quote herein below a few  of the  Regulations  which  would   unmistakably  depict  total control  of  the  University in the matter  of  running  and maintenance of the Cafeteria and the same being as below:

    54.   It shall be compulsory for each student  residing in  a  hostel  to join the cafeteria of that  hostel  unless otherwise permitted by the Chief Warden of the hostel on the request   of   the  guardian  of   the  student,   and   the recommendation  of  the Warden of that hostel to  take  food with  his  guardian.  In that event the Chief  Warden  shall inform  all  concerned  officers  of  the  University,   for example,  Comptroller, Dean Student Welfare, Hostel  Warden, etc.

    76.   The  Comptroller of the University shall  operate the  G.B.P.U.A.   Food  Services Account,  issue  cheques, maintain   the   cash    book    and   classified   accounts (unitwise/head  wise)  of income and expenditure as well  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

students  ledgers  in his office like other accounts of  the University.   In addition to arranging timely payment of the Cafeteria  bills duly authorised by the Warden and  ensuring recovery  of all Cafeteria dues from the students and  staff members  concerned the Comptroller shall be responsible  for getting  the  Cafeteria  accounts   audited  Cent-   Percent regularly.

    80.   The accounts Clerk-Cum-Store Keeper of the hostel Cafeteria shall be responsible for the proper and up-to-date maintenance  of  the  Cafeteria stores, Stores  records  and account   books  including  daily   menu  book,  cash  book, consumable stock book, daily preparation and sales register, cash credit and coupon transaction register, Stores day book (Roznamcha)  indents,  challans, bill register, daily  sales sheets,  Cash  memo  book bill book etc.  under  the  direct supervision,  control  and guidance of the  Hostel  Manager. His functions and duties shall be as follows:

    ..

    82.   The  other  cafeteria staff  including  tea  man, Head-Cook,  Bearers, etc.  shall work in accordance with the instructions  of  the Hostel Manager/Warden.  The duties  of these  staff  members  shall be  defined/prescribed  by  the Warden of the Hostel.

    88.   The  accounts of the Wardens Office  (bills  and vouchers) shall be taken by the Hostel Manager to the Office of the Comptroller for scrutiny and checking.

    92.   The  entire Cafeteria staff shall work under  the direct   supervision  of  the   Warden/Asstt.    Warden   in accordance  with the advise of the Food Committee and  under the  administrative control of the Chief Warden.  All  cases of   appointments,   termination  of   service   and   other punishments  and  promotions, rewards etc.  shall  be  dealt with by the Chief Warden in consultation with the Warden and the Food Committee.

    93.   (i) All the appointment of Cafeteria staff  would be  made  by  the  Food Committee of  the  hostel  with  the approval of the Chief Warden.

    (ii)  The leave, annual increments, unifrom, travelling allowance  etc.  to the Cafeteria staff shall be governed in accordance  with the policies laid down by the Central  Food Committee.

    106.   (i) The bills/vouchers/imprest/temporary advance adjustment accounts and monthly food accounts duly passed by the  respective  Food Secretary/Chairman, Food Committee  to their  entire satisfaction and entered in the Food Provision control  Registrar shall be sent to Comptroller directly for the   scrutiny  and   payment/adjustment/recovery  of   dues expeditiously.   The  Wardens,  Hostel   Managers  and   the respective  Food  Secretaries will be fully responsible  for making  stock  entries of all purchases made in  respect  of their  Hostels.   The  payment  will  be  made  only  if   a certificate  in  the  following form is given  on  the  bill (rubber stamp for which could be got made for convenience).

    Certified  that  the goods as per  specification  have been received and entered in the stock books.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    (ii)   The  Warden  shall   have  full  financial   and administrative  control of their Hostel Cafeteria funds  and be  responsible for up-to-date maintenance of accounts books and  submission  of bills/vouchers/adjustment accounts,  the preparation  of  monthly  food accounts  and  submission  of monthly  recovery  lists  accurately  within  the  time  and according   to  the  procedure   prescribed  in  the  Hostel Cafeteria  Regulations.   The  Wardens/Hostel  Managers/Food Secretary  concerned will be fully responsible for  checking of  rates  charged  in  the   bills  and  payments  will  be authorised on the basis of the Certification.

    107.   (i)  Similarly, the preparation of vouchers  for adjustment  account of temporary advances and re-coupment of the  permanent  advance  shall  be   done  by  the  Accounts Clerk-Cum-Store Keeper/Hostel Manager which shall be checked and  signed by the food Secretary, Warden expeditiously  and the  Warden shall ensure that no cash is drawn and  retained by  the  Hostel  Cafeteria when it is not required  for  its immediate expenditure.

    109.   The  Hostel  Cafeterias   Accounts  Clerk   cum Store-Keeper  shall be responsible to Warden/Chief Warden on the  one  hand and on the other be also responsible  to  the Comptroller for correctness of the Cafeteria accounts.

    The  detailed analysis as above has been introduced  in this judgment so as to exhibit the control of the University in  the  matter  of running of the  Cafeteria.   As  noticed above,  a  residential University having a canteen  facility and  the  inmates of the hostel not being permitted to  have food  from  outside  cannot possibly be said to  be  a  mere welfare service to the students.  It is a requirement of the Regulations  framed under the Act and thus having  statutory sanction   and  force    the   issue  thus  comes  up   for consideration  as to whether it is a mere ancillary  benefit conferred  on  to the inmates of the hostel or an  essential requirement.   The  Regulations  pertaining  to  the  hostel accommodation  and  the supplies of food do not warrant  any other   conclusion  than  to  treat   it  as  an   essential requirement  so  far  as  the  inmates  of  the  hostel  are concerned.   The  involvement  of the  Vice-Chancellor,  the Warden  and  the Food Managers who admittedly all belong  to the University as employees thereof cannot negate the cry of the  labour force asking for a parity in their scale of pay. Regularisation  will  undoubtedly bring forth a parity  with the  other employees of the University.  The requirement  of the  number of employees also cannot be brushed aside.  More than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food to the inmates of the hostels  there are altogether 14 hostels  and the inmates have to depend on to the  Cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, as a matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria  it is a requirement of the Regulation.

    Admittedly,   Cafeteria  employees   need  succour  for livelihood  would they continue to remain half fed and half clad  as long as they live  is this is the society that  we feel  proud  of:   Is  this the guarantee  provided  by  the founding  fathers of our Constitution or is this the concept of  socialism which they conceived?  None of the answers can possibly  be  in the affirmative.  The situation  is  rather

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

awesome  and  deplorable    the  University  by  compulsion directs  students to be residents of hostel with a  definite ban  on  having food from outside agencies  excepting  under special  circumstances and the provider of food, namely  the staff  of  the  Cafeteria  ought not to  be  treated  as  an employee  of the University  whose employees they are if we may ask and we think it would not be impertinent on our part to  ask  the same  is it the consumer of food?  Since  when the  consumer  of food becomes the employer?  These are  the questions  which remain unanswered:  The society shall  have to  thrive:   The  society shall have to  prosper  and  this prosperity can only come in the event of there being a wider vision  for  total  social  good and  benefit:   It  is  not bestowing  any  favour  to  anybody but it  is  a  mandatory obligation to see that the society thrives.  The deprivation of  the weaker section we had for long but time has now come to  cry halt and it is for the law courts to rise up to  the occasion  and  grant relief to a seeker of a just cause  and just grievance.  Economic justice is not a mere legal jargon but  in  the new millenium, it is the obligation for all  to confer  this  economic justice to a seeker:  Society  is  to remain,  social justice is the order and economic justice is the  rule of the day.  Narrow pedantic approach to statutory documents  no  longer survives.  The principle of  corporate jurisprudence   is  now  being   imbibed  on  to  industrial jurisprudence  and there is a long catena of cases in regard thereto   the law thus is not in a state of fluidity  since the  situation  is  more  or   less  settled.   As   regards interpretation  widest  possible amplitude shall have to  be offered  in  the  matter  of  interpretation  of   statutory documents  under  industrial jurisprudence.   The  draconian concept  is  no  longer  available.  Justice    social  and economic,  as noticed above ought to be made available  with utmost  expedition  so that the socialistic pattern  of  the society  as dreamt of by the founding fathers can thrive and have  its  foundation so that the future generation  do  not live in the dark and cry for social and economic justice.

    We   can   in  this   context,  usefully   record   the observations  of  this Court in Parimal Chandra Raha &  Ors. v.   Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.(J.T.  1995 3 SC  288)  wherein this Court in paragraph 31 of  the  Report observed:

    31.   The  facts on record on the other hand, show  in unmistakable  terms that canteen services have been provided to  the employees of the Corporation for a long time and  it is  the Corporation which has been from time to time, taking steps to provide the said services.  The canteen committees, the cooperative society of the employees and the contractors have  only been acting for and on behalf of the  Corporation as  its  agencies  to  provide   the  said  services.    The Corporation   has  been  taking   active  interest  even  in organising  the  canteen  committees.   It  is  further  the Corporation which has been appointing the contractors to run the  canteens and entering into agreements with them for the purpose.   The terms of the contract further show that  they are  in the nature of directions to the contractor about the manner  in  which the canteen should be run and the  canteen services  should  be  rendered to the employees.   Both  the appointment of the contractor and the tenure of the contract is  as  per the stipulations made by the Corporation in  the agreement.   Even the prices of the items served, the  place where  they should be cooked, the hours during which and the place  where  they  should be served, are  dictated  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

Corporation.  The Corporation has also reserved the right to modify  the  terms  of  the contract  unilaterally  and  the contractor  has no say in the matter.  Further, the  records shows  that  almost all the workers of the canteen like  the appellants have been working in the canteen continuously for a  long  time  whatever  the   mechanism  employed  by   the Corporation  to  supervise  and control the working  of  the canteen.   Although the supervising and managing body of the canteen  has  changed hands from time to time,  the  workers have  remained  constant.  This is apart from the fact  that the  infrastructure  for  running   the  canteen,  viz,  the premises, furniture, electricity, water etc.  is supplied by the  Corporation  to  the managing agency  for  running  the canteen.   Further,  it cannot be disputed that the  canteen service  is  essential  for  the efficient  working  of  the employees  and of the offices of the Corporation.  In  fact, by  controlling the hours during which the counter and floor service  will  be  made available to the  employees  by  the canteen,  the Corporation has also tried to avoid the  waste of time which would otherwise be the result if the employees have  to go outside the offices in search of such  services. The  service  is  available  to all  the  employees  in  the premises  of  the  office   itself  and  continuously  since inception  of the Corporation, as pointed out earlier.   The employees  of the Corporation have all along been making the complaints  about the poor or inadequate service rendered by the  canteen  to  them,  only to  the  Corporation  and  the Corporation  has been taking steps to remedy the defects  in the   canteen  service.   Further,   whenever  there  was  a temporary  breakdown  in the canteen service, on account  of the agitation or of strike by the canteen workers, it is the Corporation which has been taking active interest in getting the  dispute  resolved  and the canteen  workers  have  also looked  upon  the  Corporation as their  real  employer  and joined  it  as a party to the industrial dispute  raised  by them.   In  the circumstances, we are of the view  that  the canteen  has  become  a  part of the  establishment  of  the Corporation.    The  canteen   committees,  the  cooperative society  of  the employees and the contractors engaged  from time  to time are in reality the agencies of the Corporation and are, only a veil between the Corporation and the canteen workers.  We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion  that  the  canteen  workers   are  in  fact  the employees of the Corporation.

    The  Regulations  if  read  on  the  lines  as  noticed hereinbefore  lead  to  unmistakable   conclusion  that  the employees  of  the Cafeteria cannot but be termed to be  the employees  of the University.  It is on this score the  High@@                                JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Court  in  the  judgment impugned observed as  below:   The@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ learned  counsel  also assailed the findings of  the  Labour Court on the question of relationship of master and servant. I  have  perused  the  findings   and  in  my  opinion  this contention  is  also  not  correct.  The  Labour  Court  has referred to various documents, appointment letters, transfer orders   which  clearly  demonstrate   the  control  of  the University  over  the Cafeteria staff.  The  documents  have been  fully corroborated by oral evidence.  No evidence  was adduced  on  behalf  of the University  to  controvert  this documentary   and  oral  evidence.   In  these   facts   and circumstances,  it  cannot be said that the findings  suffer from any error of law.  The relationship of employer and the

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

employees  between the University and the Cafeteria staff is established  from  the provisions contained in the Act,  the Statutes  and the Regulations framed thereunder and also  by the  documentary  and oral evidence filed before the  Labour Court.   The  claim raised by the members of  the  Cafeteria staff  in  the  two cases has rightly  been  accepted.   The impugned  awards of the Labour Court are perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not suffer from my error of law.

    In  a faint attempt Mr.  Trivedi wanted to introduce  a pragmatic approach to the problem and contended that the law courts  should  consider  the matter from  different  angles applying  practical  experience and factual contexts  before arriving  at  the solution.  It has been contended that  the financial implications would be rather much too heavy on the University  to be borne by it and unless State assistance is made  available, it would a well neigh impossibility to meet the   burden,  we  are,  however,   unable  to  record   our concurrence  thereto.   Pragmatism does not  necessarily  be deprivation  of the legitimate claims of the weaker sections of the society.  The submission, if we may say with respect, is  totally  misplaced  and  does not  warrant  any  further discussion  thereon.  In that view of the matter, we do  not see  any  merit  in  these two  appeals.   The  appeals  are dismissed.   All interim orders are vacated.  The University is  directed to regularise the services of the employees  in terms  of  the  award  passed by the Labour  Court  by  31st August, 2000 so as to entitle the employees of the Cafeteria to  obtain the monthly wages at par with the other employees of  the  University, as directed by the labour  court.   The arrears  of salary, if there be any payable, as per the said directions,  as confirmed by the High Court, be paid to  the canteen  staff  concerned  by 12 equal  monthly  instalments alongwith the regularised salary.

    The learned additional Solicitor General submitted that once  the  Cafeteria staff employees are held to  be  direct employees  of  the  University,   then  the  University,  in exercise of its entrepreneurial or managerial functions, can constitute  a  separate cadre of Cafeteria  staff  employees with  suitable  hierarchy  of posts in the said  cadre  with separate  pay scales as would be commensurate with the other perquisites and facilities available to all such staff under the  relevant regulations framed by the University.  We  are not  concerned with this aspect of the matter in the present proceedings,  as  such  we are not  expressing  any  opinion thereon  excepting  recording that the parties would  be  at liberty  to  take appropriate steps in accordance with  law. The  appeals  are accordingly dismissed with no order as  to costs.