Case: CHENNAI PORT TRUST Vs. THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS

and all the benefits to the canteen employees.(ix) The prices of the food stuff are very cheap and the food is carried in trickles to the workers in the Marshalling Yard, ONGC Pipeline, Oil Dock, Diesel Loco and such other places where a canteen cannot be established and specifically intended only for the workers.(x) The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) of the Port Trust has been nominated as the President of the canteen and the entire canteen affairs are handled and controlled by the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Port Trust.(xi) The financial matters are controlled by the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Port Trust.(xii) The President of the fourth respondent controls all policy matters concerning the canteen.(xiii) It is a matter of common knowledge that at least as far as Chennai Port Trust is concerned, it is located in a place that the nearest restaurant or canteen would be at least two to three kilometres away from the entrance of the Port Trust. Therefore, the canteen is a must not only for employees, but also for the entire staff at various levels and also visitors having official and commercial dealings with the Port Trust. The Port Trust itself is a very large and sprawling area from one end to the other. Therefore, the canteen is an indispensable necessity to the Port Trust.The learned single Judge thereafter observed that none of the aforesaid positive claims of the writ petitioner are denied by the respondents. It is only because there was no dispute on facts that the learned single Judge proceeded to decide the matter, though the workmen had directly filed the writ petition without approaching the Tribunal.15. If we see the Indian Petrochemicals case, the similarity of the factual issues is quite startling. In that case –(a) The canteen has been there since the inception of the appellants factory.(b) The workmen have been employed for long years and despite a change of contractors, the workers have continued to be employed in the canteen.(c) The premises, furniture, fixture, fuel, electricity, utensils etc. have been provided for by the appellant.d) The wages of the canteen workers have to be reimbursed by the appellant.(e) The supervision and control on the canteen is exercised by the appellant through its authorised officer, as can be seen from the various clauses of the contract between the appellant and the contractor.(f) The contractor is nothing but an agent or a manager of the appellant, who works completely under the supervision, control and directions of the appellant.(g) The workmen have the protection of continuous employment in the establishment.On the basis of the above facts, the Supreme Court arrived at the opinion that the workmen were the workmen of the management and by the same process of reasoning, the learned single Judge also came to the conclusion that the canteen workmen were the workmen of the Port Trust. We see no error in this reasoning.”15. We find no fault in the aforementioned findings recorded by the Division Bench as, in our view, these findings were recorded on the basis of undisputed facts and documents on record of the case. That apart, these findings were recorded keeping in view the facts involved and law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra)16. Mere perusal of the decision rendered in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) would go to show that in that case also, somewhat similar question, which is the subject matter of this appeal, had arisen at the instance of the employees working in canteen. This Court (Three Judge Bench) elaborately examined the question and took note of the relevant undisputed facts, which had bearing over the question, granted the reliefs to the employees concerned.17. In our considered opinion, the approach and the reasoning of the two Courts below (Writ Court and Division Bench) while deciding the writ petition and the appeal arising out of the writ petition keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) is just, proper and legal.18. In other words, if on the undisputed facts, this Court has granted benefit to the canteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) then there is no reason that on the same set of undisputed facts arising in this case, the Court should not grant the benefit to the employees/workers in this case. It is more so when no distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua Indian Petrochemicals’s case(supra).19. We are, therefore, in agreement with the approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below.20. We are, however, not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Chennai Port Trust) when he contended that the writ Court should not have entertained the writ petition and instead the respondent (Writ Petitioner-Association) should have been granted liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised by them in the writ petition.21. In the first place, writ Court having entertained the writ petition and granted relief on merits, this objection has lost its significance now; Second, the appellate Court also having gone into the merits of the case and affirmed the order of the writ Court on merits, it is too late to entertain such submission, which is technical in nature; and third, the findings on merits have been recorded by the two Courts on the basis of undisputed facts/documents requiring no trial on facts.22. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.23. Though learned counsel for the appellant argued some more issues but they did not impress us so as to reverse the findings of the two courts below and in any case, in the light of the findings recorded by the two Courts below, which are based on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra), we need not entertain his submissions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.12. In our considered view, the Writ Court (Single Judge) and the Division Bench were right in their reasoning and the conclusion.13. The Division Bench, in our opinion, rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. vs Shramik Sena & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 439   and compared the facts of the above case with that of the case at hand and found great similarities in both for granting relief to the members of the respondent (Association).We find no fault in the aforementioned findings recorded by the Division Bench as, in our view, these findings were recorded on the basis of undisputed facts and documents on record of the case. That apart, these findings were recorded keeping in view the facts involved and law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra)16. Mere perusal of the decision rendered in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) would go to show that in that case also, somewhat similar question, which is the subject matter of this appeal, had arisen at the instance of the employees working in canteen. This Court (Three Judge Bench) elaborately examined the question and took note of the relevant undisputed facts, which had bearing over the question, granted the reliefs to the employees concerned.17. In our considered opinion, the approach and the reasoning of the two Courts below (Writ Court and Division Bench) while deciding the writ petition and the appeal arising out of the writ petition keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) is just, proper and legal.18. In other words, if on the undisputed facts, this Court has granted benefit to the canteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) then there is no reason that on the same set of undisputed facts arising in this case, the Court should not grant the benefit to the employees/workers in this case. It is more so when no distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua Indiancase(supra).19. We are, therefore, in agreement with the approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below.20. We are, however, not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Chennai Port Trust) when he contended that the writ Court should not have entertained the writ petition and instead the respondent (Writshould have been granted liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised by them in the writ petition.21. In the first place, writ Court having entertained the writ petition and granted relief on merits, this objection has lost its significance now; Second, the appellate Court also having gone into the merits of the case and affirmed the order of the writ Court on merits, it is too late to entertain such submission, which is technical in nature; and third, the findings on merits have been recorded by the two Courts on the basis of undisputed facts/documents requiring no trial on facts.22. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.23. Though learned counsel for the appellant argued some more issues but they did not impress us so as to reverse the findings of the two courts below and in any case, in the light of the findings recorded by the two Courts below, which are based on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra), we need not entertain his submissions.