1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2911 OF 1989. 1. Chandrakanat Yadavrao Borude, Age 24 years, Occ.Service, R/o Nagapur, Ahmednagar. 2. R Perumal, Age 24 years, Occ.Service, R/o Bhaskar Colony, Nagapur, Ahmednagar. 3. Chelleih Shankar Pande, Age 22 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o Puny Motors Grinding Shop, Shed No.W/A-50, MIDC, Ahmednagar. 4. Raju Baban Shinde, Age 24 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o 6250, Nanibai Niwas, Sarjepura, Ahmednagar. 5. Punja Shahu Thokal, Age 25 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o C/o R.N.Lokhande Padma Nagar, Bhist Baug Road, Ahmednagar. 6. Madhukar Baburao Patole, Age 23 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, 7. Ashok Ganapat Pawar, Age 32 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, 2 R/o Nagapur, Ahmednagar. 8. AshokRangnath Waghmare, Age 22 years, Occ.Service, R/o Padma Nagar, Bhist Baug Road,Ahmednagar. 9. Shantaram Madhav Pacharne, Age 30 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o Nagapur, Ahmednagar. 10. Nayram Punjaji Sabale, Age 27 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o Nagapur,Ahmednagar. 11. Abhimanyu Namdeo Khatmode, Age 30 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o Shani Chowk, Thorad-wada, Near Tawkal Wastad Talim, Ahmednagar. 12. S.M.Ganesh, Age 22 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o C/o R. Perumal, Baraskar Colony, Nagapur, Ahmednagar. 13. Krishan Mahadeo Virkud, Age 25 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o C/o A.G.Pawar, Nagapur, Ahmednagar. 14. Shashiraj Ezra David, Age 35 years, Occ.Service, At present Nil, R/o H.No.6, Irani Road, Bhingar, Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. Versus 3 1. Crompton Greaves Ltd., A-6/2, MIDC, Nagapur, Ahmednagar, through its General Manager. 2. M/s Kabra Caterers, Denal Bank Colony, Nagar-Manmad Road, Ahmednagar. 3. Shri K.C.Karkar, Conciliation Officer, under Industrial Disputes Act, 1946 Office of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar. 4. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Industry, Energy and Labour Department, Sachiwalaya, Bombay. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.B.Yenge, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 15.02.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn order rendered by learned Conciliation Officer on 11.11.1987 declining to refer the dispute raised by them to Industrial Tribunal or 4 Labour Court as contemplated U/s 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the purpose of adjudication. The petitioners asserted that they were employees of canteen run by the Respondent No.2 - M/s Kabra Caterers in the premises of the Respondent No.1 - Crompton Greaves Ltd., which is a Company registered under the Companies Act. They asserted that they were employees of the Respondent No.1 company but their employment was shown as canteen workers of Respondent No.2 which was only a camouflage. They contended that in order to avoid benefits of employment available to them, they were not shown as workers on establishment of the Respondent No.1 Company. They raised dispute regarding nature of the employment and challenged illegal termination. The Works Manager of the Respondent No.1 informed them that they were not workmen of the Company. The dispute was raised by filing proceedings before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Labour Officer. The Labour Officer informed them that they could not establish employer-employee relationship between the Respondent No.1 and 5 themselves. Consequently, the Conciliation Officer declined to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court or to the Labour Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The question whether the petitioners are employees of the caterer i.e. Respondent No.2 or that they were employed by the Company i.e. Respondent No.1 is a disputed question. The nature of employment will have to be determined on strength of the appointment orders and on determination of the manner in which the canteen was being operated. Whether the canteen is part and parcel of the establishment of the employer's Company is a decisive factor. In the present case, the Respondent No.1 was not dealing with any work related to the food or beverages etc. The canteen facility was provided for the workers. It could not be regarded as canteen facility available like one in Railway establishment or other establishments where catering activity is for benefit of the customers. 6 4. In "Cipla Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others" AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1165, the Apex Court held that the exercise whether the contract between the workers and the caterers is a camouflage or bogus can not be gone into by the Conciliation Officer. It is held that the Labour Court or Industrial Court under the Act is not appropriate Court to decide such a question. The reference to Labour Court or the Industrial Court was, therefore, uncalled for. In the present case, the impugned order of the Respondent No.3 can not be, therefore, faulted with. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy. Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp291189