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

2. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow to appreciate the question involved in the appeal.3. The appellantat Chennai. It has been in existence for the last many decades and has a large administrative and technical set up to run their multifarious activities on the Port.4. Large numbers of workers/employees are employed by the Port Trust who work round the clock in shifts to run and maintain the activities of the Port Trust. These Port Trust workers/employees are provided with the facility of canteen. Aai Port Trust Industrial Employeesns the Canteen. It has been running since 1964. This canteen has employed a large number of employees to run the canteen. The employees working in the canteen have formed an Association knownPort Trust Industrial EmployeesCanteen Workers Welfarent No.1 herein.5. TheNo.1 herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the High Court at Madras against the appellant herein (Chennai Port Trust) espousing the cause of their members (employees working in the Canteen) and sought a writ of mandamus against the appellantChennai Port Trust (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) directing the appellant to treat the employees working in the Canteen to be the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust and accordingly pay them all attendant and monetary benefits at par with the regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust.6. According to the writ petitioner (employees concerned), they have been working in the Canteen for decades and regularly catering and fulfilling the needs of the employees of the Port Trust. According to the Association, the members of the Associationemployees working in the canteen are entitled to claim the same benefit and perks which are being given to the regular permanent employees of the Chennai Port Trust. The Association also pointed out the similar instances of other government organizations wherein the benefits of this nature were given to the employees working in the organizations alike the members of the Association in question.7. The Chennai Port Trust mainly opposed the writ petition on two issues. First, the Chennai Port Trust has no control whatsoever over any of the activities of the Canteen in question including any control over its employees and second, the question as to whether the canteen employees are to be treated as employees of the Chennai Port Trust or not is a question of fact and, therefore, the writ petition is not the effective remedy to decide this question. According to the Chennai Port Trust, such issues should be raised before the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.8. The Writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petition filed by the Association(respondent No.1 herein) and accordingly issued a writ of mandamus against the appellant (Chennai Port Trust), as prayed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition. In other words, the writ Court granted the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.9. The appellant (Chennai Port Trust) felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench in the High Court. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the Chennai Port Trust.

Reasoning: 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.