Members of the Chennai Port Trust Co-operative Canteen are entitled to claim same benefits as given to the regular permanent employees of the Chennai Port Trust: SC

The Supreme Courtroom on 27th April, 2018 claimed that Users of the Chennai Port Have confidence in Industrial Staff Co-operative Canteen Constrained working in the canteen are entitled to claim the same advantage and perks which are getting offered to the typical lasting staff members of the Chennai Port Have confidence in. This judgement was offered by the bench of Hon’ble Justices R.K. Agarwal and Abhay Manohar Sapre in the case of Chennai Port Have confidence in V. The Chennai Port Have confidence in Industrial Staff Canteen Staff Welfare Affiliation And Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL No.1381 OF 2010]
The appellant “Chennai Port Trust” is positioned atChennai. It has been in existence for the final quite a few a long time and has a large administrative and complex established up to run their multifarious actions on the Port. Significant numbers of personnel/staff members are utilized by the Port Have confidence in who do the job spherical the clock in shifts to run and preserve the actions of the Port Have confidence in. These Port Have confidence in personnel/staff members are supplied with the facility of canteen. A Co-Operative Culture called “Chennai Port Have confidence in Industrial Staff Co-operative Canteen Limited” operates the Canteen. It has been operating given that 1964. This canteen has utilized a large range of staff members to run the canteen. The staff members working in the canteen have fashioned an Affiliation recognised as “Chennai Port Have confidence in Industrial Staff Canteen Staff Welfare Association” (for small called “Association”)-respondent No.1 herein.
The Affiliation-respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition getting W.P. No.6872 of 2001 in the Large Courtroom at Madras versus the appellant herein (Chennai Port Have confidence in) espousing the trigger of their members (staff members working in the Canteen) and sought a writ of mandamus versus the appellant – Chennai Port Have confidence in (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) directing the appellant to treat the staff members working in the Canteen to be the typical staff members of the Chennai Port Have confidence in and accordingly pay back them all attendant and monetary positive aspects at par with the typical staff members of the Chennai Port Have confidence in.
In accordance to the writ petitioner (staff members concerned), they have been working in the Canteen for a long time and consistently catering and satisfying the wants of the staff members of the Port Have confidence in. In accordance to the Affiliation, the members of the Affiliation -staff members working in the canteen are entitled to claim the same advantage and perks which are getting offered to the typical lasting staff members of the Chennai Port Have confidence in. The Affiliation also pointed out the related circumstances of other federal government companies whereby the positive aspects of this character had been offered to the staff members working in the companies alike the members of the Affiliation in problem.
The Chennai Port Have confidence in primarily opposed the writ petition on two challenges. First, the Chennai Port Have confidence in has no manage by any means around any of the actions of the Canteen in problem including any manage around its staff members and next, the problem as to whether the canteen staff members are to be handled as staff members of the Chennai Port Have confidence in or not is a problem of reality and, as a result, the writ petition is not the helpful cure to determine this problem. In accordance to the Chennai Port Have confidence in, such challenges must be raised in advance of the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.
The Writ Courtroom (Single Decide) allowed the writ petition filed by the Affiliation(respondent No.1 herein) and accordingly issued a writ of mandamus versus the appellant (Chennai Port Have confidence in), as prayed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition. In other text, the writ Courtroom granted the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in their writ petition.
The appellant (Chennai Port Have confidence in) felt aggrieved and filed intra court charm in advance of the Division Bench in the Large Courtroom. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the charm and upheld the get of the Single Decide, which has offered rise to filing of the current charm by way of distinctive go away by the Chennai Port Have confidence in.
Soon after listening to both the sides in the charm the Supreme Courtroom claimed ” we uncover no advantage in the charm. In our viewed as see, the Writ Courtroom (Single Decide) and the Division Bench had been ideal in their reasoning and the summary.The Division Bench, in our viewpoint, rightly relied upon the conclusion of this Courtroom in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. vs Shramik Sena & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 439 and compared the info of the previously mentioned case with that of the case at hand and observed great similarities in both for granting reduction to the members of the respondent (Affiliation).
The Supreme Courtroom additional additional that ” If we see the Indian Petrochemical’s case, the similarity of the factual challenges is fairly startling. In that case –
(a) The canteen has been there given that the inception of the appellant’s manufacturing facility.
(b) The workmen have been utilized for lengthy yrs and despite a change of contractors, the personnel have continued to be utilized in the canteen.
(c) The premises, furnishings, fixture, gas, electrical power, utensils and so on. have been supplied for by the appellant.
(d) The wages of the canteen personnel have to be reimbursed by the appellant.
(e) The supervision and manage on the canteen is exercised by the appellant through its authorised officer, as can be viewed from the many clauses of the deal among the appellant and the contractor.
(f) The contractor is nothing at all but an agent or a manager of the appellant, who functions absolutely underneath the supervision, manage and instructions of the appellant.
(g) The workmen have the protection ofcontinuous employment in the establishment.
On the foundation of the previously mentioned info, the Supreme Courtroom arrived at the viewpoint that the workmen had been the workmen of the administration and by the same system of reasoning, the learned single Decide also came to the summary that the canteen workmen had been the workmen of the Port Have confidence in.

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *