Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 1996 Date of Decision: 22.12.2008 Mess Kalyan Employees Union (Registered), Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra …Petitioner Versus Board of Governors of Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed by Mess Kalyan Employees Union (Registered), Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra, through its Secretary Baldev Singh. They have prayed in the present writ petition that Mess Supervisor, Head Cook, Assistant Cook, Chapatiman, Kitchenman, Bearer, Sweeper, Pantrymen, Common Room Attendant Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 1996 2 and Waiter, who were working as employee in the Mess of the hostels run by the Kurukshetra University be paid regular pay scale as being paid to the other employees working in the Mess/Canteen of various hotels managed and maintained by the respondent-College with all allowances as admissible under the Rules and further all other service benefits as admissible to other regular employees of the College. Second prayer has been made that the petitioners be treated as employees of the College. An alternative prayer has been also made that minimum wages prescribed by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 be also paid to them. A further prayer has been made that they have discharged their duties for five years, therefore, they should be regularized by the College in accordance with the regularization policy of the State. The first and foremost question which this Court has to answer that whether these employees are employees of Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra or not. Stand taken by the respondents in para 6 of the written statement is as under:- “6. That para No.6 of the petition is correct only to the extent that the recommendation of the Mess Committees of individual hostels are processed by the Hostel Office under the supervision of the Wardens but the mess staff is appointed only by the students. The College Administration is thus in no position to issue appointment Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 1996 3 letters to any mess staff. The salary etc. is meted out from the Hostel funds collected from the students, who opt for residential accommodation in the College. A committee of the students of each Hostel in the College runs the Mess under the supervision of Warden and Chief Warden. It is also wrong and denied that the mess workers are paid meagre salary which is less than the minimum wage. Since all these workers connected in the Mess affairs are given rent free accommodation, meals of three times, uniforms and other benefits and as such their total emoluments cannot be termed meagre. Moreover, the salaries & perquisites being provided to the mess employee are decided on mutually agreed basis”. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has also relied upon Annexure P7 i.e. rules regarding the hostels published in the prospectus. Under the heading “Mess” it has been stated that Mess is run on a co-operative basis with the assistance of the students in the form of Mess Committee under the overall supervision of the Wardens. To assail this rule, Mr. Dinesh Kumar has stated that this is a camouflage. If all these rules are examined then it is evident that Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 1996 4 membership of the Mess is compulsory. The appointment and salary is drawn by the Warden. It has been further stated that Mess Committee can only recommend disciplinary action but the same is to be decided and taken by the Warden and the Principal. Therefore, it has been stated that it is wrong to state that Mess Committees are being run on a co-operative basis. To a query put, whether Principal and the Warden can be member of such Co-operative Society, counsel at his evasive best, has referred to the Constitution of the Mess Committee which has been defined under the heading “Mess Committee”. It states that there shall be a Mess Committee in each hostel which shall comprise of six to nine student members nominated by the Wardens or elected by the diners as per policy laid down. The Mess Committee shall be presided over by the Warden. It has been further held that Mess Committee MMCA shall be responsible for the execution of decisions of the Mess Committee. The duties of Mess committee also include to recommend staff for appointment in the Mesas. It is a disputed question of fact whether Principal or Warden is an Ex-officio member of the Mess Committee or not. In the present case, no appointment letter has been also placed on record. Mr. Dinesh Kumar has also relied upon G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2000(3) Recent Services Judgments 777 to state that the mandate of law laid therein is sufficient to hold that in the present case the petitioners are employees of the University. I am afraid that this contention of learned Mr. Dinesh Kumar cannot be accepted as in that Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 1996 5 case evidence had been adduced by both the parties and award was given under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Dinesh Kumar has further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Jaimal Singh v. The State of Punjab and Others 1996(2) Recent Services Judgments 712 to state that even in cases where disputed question of fact are involved, jurisdiction of High Court is not barred. There is no quarrel with this proposition but where disputed questions are such that can be only determined after the evidence is led and is appreciated, in those cases the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution shall tread with care and caution and will avoid to take the path as suggested by the counsel especially when there is an alternative remedy available with the petitioners under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948. Learned counsel for the University has relied upon State of Karnataka and Others v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Assn. and Others (2006)1 Supreme Court Cases 567 to say that the petitioners cannot demand equal pay scale as it has been held therein that where the workmen are not holding any post or status with the State Government, then they cannot be put at par with the employees of the hospitality organization. Petitioners, if so desire, are at liberty to take the recourse to lawful remedy available to them except the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they may be relegated to the Labour Court for settlement of their dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1948. In case the petitioners give a demand notice and raise Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 1996 6 industrial dispute, their demand notice be decided by appropriate Authorities, in accordance with law. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 22, 2008 “DK”