9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private company under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the employees working in the canteen of the appellant's factory should be treated as employees of the appellant. Summary: Issue 1: Writ of Mandamus Against a Private Company The appellant, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, contended that a writ would not lie against it as it is not an authority or a person against whom a writ would lie. The learned Single Judge, however, held that a writ of mandamus would lie against a private company if it is discharging a public duty, as the establishment and maintenance of a canteen is a statutory requirement u/s 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed this view, stating that the expression "any person or authority" in Article 226 of the Constitution covers any body performing public duty, regardless of its form. However, the Supreme Court held that the appellant is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as the manufacture and sale of cigarettes do not involve any public function, and the canteen is merely a labour welfare device, not a public duty. Issue 2: Employment Status of Canteen Workers The Tribunal found that the canteen workers should be treated as employees of the appellant, based on several factors: 1. The canteen has been operational since the inception of the factory. 2. Workers continued employment despite changes in contractors. 3. The appellant provided premises, furniture, fixtures, fuel, electricity, and utensils. 4. Wages were reimbursed by the appellant. 5. The appellant exercised supervision and control over the canteen. 6. The contractor acted as an agent or manager under the appellant's supervision. 7. Workers had the protection of continuous employment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings that the appellant exercised complete control over the canteen, making the workers employees of the appellant. Despite agreeing with the respondents on merits, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying the legal position on writ jurisdiction but not disturbing the High Court's decision due to the special features of the case. Additional Appeals: In related appeals, the Tribunal had concluded that the canteen workers were employees of the appellant, entitled to appropriate scales and designations with all consequential benefits. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition against this award. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions, including the argument about the hazardous location of the canteen, and dismissed the appeals.
|
