THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 4939 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 244 of 2000 dated 11.8.2004 on the file of Labour Court, Anantapur whereunder the reference made by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 23.9.2000 under G.O.Ms.No. 1763 Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab-I) Department dated 23.9.2000 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered in favour of the workman and the management was directed to consider the claim of the workman as per the Rules prevailing in APSRTC and till such time to treat the workman as casual employee of the respondent for the purpose of counting the service and that the workman shall be deemed to be in service from 1995. The reference reads as under: “Whether the action of the Works Manager, Zonal Work Shops, APSRTC, Cuddapah in not regularizing the services of Sri Harinadha, Asst. Cook, APSRTC, Zonal Workshop, Cuddapah even after 5 years of service is justified”? The fact that the workman was working in the canteen attached to the Zonal Workshop of Kadapa is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1995 when the workman was appointed, there was no contractor engaged. The plea of the petitioner- management that in 1998 a contractor was introduced and the workman was working under the said contractor was disbelieved by the Labour Court. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The law in this regard is no more res integra. A Division Bench of this Court i n A.P. Daily Development Co-Op. Federation Ltd. V. Shivadas Pillay and others (1992 I LLJ 153) held that once a canteen is established under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, the employees in the canteen would become employees of the occupier. In view of the settled position, the workman is entitled for all the benefits as per law. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 24-01-2011. MVB.