IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 28321 of 1998 Between: 1 B.Murali Naidu, S/o. Kama Raju, R/o. Visakhapatnam 2 B.Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Nooka Raju, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 3 A.Nagasuri, S/o. Rama Murthy, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 4 K.Ammaji, S/o. Suri Babu, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 5 B.Nookaraju, S/o. Yerrayyya, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 6 K.Srinivas, S/o. Demudu, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 7 T.Ramana, S/o. Naga Raju, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 8 K.Eswar Rao, S/o. Mathayya, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 9 B.Satyanarayana, S/o. Mahalakshmi, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 10 Y.Sathi Babu, S/o. Satya Rao, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 11 M.Eswara Rao, S/o. Musalaiah, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 12 Ch.Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Simhachalam, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 13 A.Mahalakshmi Naidu, S/o. Rama Murthy, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 14 V.Simhachalam, S/o. Nookaraju, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 15 N.Suryanarayana, S/o. Demudu, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 16 D.Suryachandra Rao, S/o. Rajulu, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 17 D.Gopi, S/o. Somulu, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 18 P.Suri Babu, S/o. Varahalu, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 19 A.Satyanarayana, S/o. Appala Naidu, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 20 M.Appala Naidu, S/o. Aditya, R/o. Visakhapatnam. 21 Devadas J.Shetty, S/o. Late Jaganadha Shetty, H.P.C.L. Canteen, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Visakhapatnam. 2 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Bombay. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of MANDUMAS by directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as its employees with all consequential and attendant benefits including payment of Salaries as admissible from the date of engagement. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY, MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE The Court made the following: ORDER Petitioners, who are 21 in number, claim to be working in the Canteen maintained by the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Visakhapatnam. Further, they claim that the respondent-Corporation is obligated under the law to maintain a Canteen for the benefit of its workers under Section 46 of the Factories Act and any person, who works in the factory is treated as employee of the organization. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent-Corporation to treat them as employees of the respondent-Corporation and extend all the benefits, as per law. The law in this regard is no more res integra. It is covered by catena of Judgments of the Apex Court. It is suffice to notice the judgment rendered in Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., M.Venkataiah[1], wherein it was held as under: “Canteen workers – Regularization of services - Principal employer has statutory duty to provide canteen for its workmen- In discharge of such statutory obligation, principal employer availing services of contractors- Canteen employees would be employees of principal employer – They would be entitled to regularization of services and salary at par with regular employees.” In fact, this decision was made against the very same Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Visakahaptnam, where the petitioners are working. In view of the same, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as employees of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Visakhapatnam and consider regularization of their services and extend all the benefits on par with regular employees. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________ 22-04-2008 rkk .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Visakhapatnam. 2 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Bombay. 3. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3124