Balwant Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 543 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. There are canteens in Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe and petitioners are working in these canteens. They are the employees of these canteens on casual basis which are being run by Canteen Committee of Lok Sabha Employees Union. These petitioners have been working in these canteens for number of years. Their demand in this writ petition is for regularisation of their services and treating them as employees of Lok Sabha Secretariat on the ground that they are serving in these canteens for last several years.

2. The case of the petitioners is that although the canteens are being run by the Canteen Committee, which is arrayed as respondent No. 3, Chief Patron of respondent No.3 is the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Patron is Secretary General of Lok Sabha. Other office bearers of this Committee are all employees of Lok Sabha Secretariat that is respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 2 even pays 70 per cent of the share of salaries of the petitioners and 30 per cent is raised by the staff canteens. It is further stated that in the case of C.K. Jha & Ors. and P.N. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (CW No. 6189-7044 & 8246-55/83) the Supreme Court pronounced judgment dated 11.10.1991 and in compliance with the said judgment, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India had issued office memo dated 24.1.1992 wherein it is stipulated that:

a) under the existing financial arrangement, the Central Government used to bear 70% of the salary bills of the employees of non-statutory departmental canteens, by way of subsidy and that the balance of 30% was to be raised by the Canteen itself;

b) that according to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the employees of the non-statutory departmental canteens are to be treated as Central Government servants and will be entitled to all benefits which a Central Government servant is normally entitled to;

c) that the entire provision needed for pay, allowance, pension etc. of the canteen employee may be made by their respective Ministries/Departments in their Demand for Grants under a distinct subhead "Departmental/Canteens".

3. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions, Government of India too issued the office memorandum dated 29.1.1992 to implement the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by extending to canteen employees all benefits available to other Government employees of comparable status from 1.10.1991 and by stating that the practice of granting a subsidy to meet 70 per cent of the wage bill of the canteen staff stands discontinued from 1.10.1991.

4. Petitioners case is that they have been making representations from time to time to the respondents requesting for treating these petitioners as employees of Central Government and extending all benefits associated thereto. There were even assurances given by respondents for absorbing petitioners as regular employees but the needful was not done and in these circumstances, petitioners were forced to file the present writ petition claiming this relief.

5. Mr. D.P. Khandelwal, learning counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been working for a long period without any break and therefore they were entitled to be made permanent as per the pronouncements of the Apex Court in various cases. He referred to the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of M. M. R. Khan & Ors. Vs. UOI and in the case of C.K.Jha & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. W.P. (Civil) Nos. 6189-7044 and 8246-55 of 1983. He further submitted that Lok Sabha canteen where the petitioners were working was a departmental canteen which was borne out from the following facts :

1) It is located in high security zone buildings of Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe.

2) The salary of the canteen employees is borne by Lok Sabha Secretariat as per the scheme:

a) The attendance is marked by the Welfare Section of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

b) Their rolls are monitored by the Lok Sabha Secretariat and verified for salary payment;

c) Salary bills are prepared by the Budget & Payment Branch of the Secretariat and passed by the Pay & Accounts Officer of the Secretariat;

All these facts are not denied by the respondent No. 2.

3) The other expenditure on power, water, furniture, LPG installation, general maintenance including sanitation, etc. are all maintained by the Works & General/DMSS Branches of the Secretariat. All such requirements are put up and examined by the Welfare/Works & General branches of the Secretariat.

4) Facilities like air conditioners, exhaust fans, other fans, furniture, telephone, stationary, to the canteen have been continuously provided by the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

6. It was further submitted that the case of the petitioners was squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the Case of C.K. Jha & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. and M.M.R. Khan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and the petitioners were entitled to the status of Central Government employees as per these judgments and particularly following observations were relied upon in M.M.R. Khan's case:

"These canteens have been in existence at their respective places continuously for a number of years the premises as well as the entire paraphernalia for the canteens is provided by the Railway Administration and belong to it. The employees engaged in the canteens have also been in service uninterruptedly for many years. Their wages are reimbursed in full by the Railway Administration. The entire running of the canteens including the work of the employees is subject to the supervision and control of the agency of the Railway Administration whether the Agency is the staff committee or the society."

7. It was also submitted that in para 18 of the counter affidavit it has already been conceded that "on persistent demand by the daily wagers of the canteen for their regularization/regular employment in this Secretariat, the matter was examined by the Secretariat and it was decided that the persons working in the staff can be considered for absorption in the Secretariat as Attd. Gr. IV (Farrash)". It is thus clear that the employees can be regularised on the basis of the existing rules. It was further submitted that even on the ground of equity, justice and fair play where the livelihood of so many persons are involved, as a model employer Lok Sabha Secretariat should regularise the services of its adhoc employees who have been in their service for as many as over 16 years now.

8. Mr. Neeraj Kaul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lok Sabha Secretariat refuted the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioners. He raised preliminary submission to the effect that Lok Sabha Secretariat was an independent body and it is independent of Central Government both administratively and financially. The Lok Sabha Secretariat is part of the third organ of the State i.e., the Legislature which is independent of the Central Government. Explicit authority has been given to the Speaker in the matter of appointment, disciplinary action, promotion and issuing of orders affecting matters or conditions of service of the staff. Even the question of revision of pay scales of the employee of the Lok Sabha Secretariat is kept outside the purview of the Central Pay Commission constituted by the GOI for their employees in view of the independent nature of the Secretariat. For revising desirable changes in the structure of pay & allowance, leaves and benefits etc. to the employees of the Lok Sabha Secretariat (as well as of RSS), a high powered committee of the Parliament comprising Chairman Estimate Committee, Chairman Public Accounts Committee, Ministers of Finance and Parliamentary. Affairs and two Members of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha is constituted by the Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha by mutual consultation. That according to well established conventions, the orders issued by the Government to the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India do not automatically, ipso facto or ipso jure, apply to the officers and staff of the Secretariats of Parliament, unless explicitly adopted. It was further submitted that respondent No. 2 had formulated its own Service Rules namely 'The Lok Sabha Secretariat Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules 1955 (R&CS Rules, 1955 for short') which were promulgated by President of India in consultation with the Speaker of Lok Sabha. These Rules were framed in exercise of powers conferred on President by Clause 3 of Article 98 of the Constitution of India and thus it is clear that Lok Sabha Secretariat was independent of Central Government administratively and financially and matters governing and regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the officers/staff of the Lok Sabha Secretariat continue to be governed by the R&CS Rules, 1955. The power conferred on the Speaker by these Rules, which have the force of law, are exercised by him through issue of Recruitment & Conditions of Service orders (R&CS Orders for short) from time to time. Under Rule 3(2) of the R&CS Rules, 1955, the Speaker may, from time to time, increase or reduce the number of posts or may add new category of post or posts (for certain posts in consultation with the Ministry of Finance). Rule 4(1) provides for the method of recruitment and Rule 4(2) empowers the Speaker to specify the method or methods by which a post or class of posts may be filled. The qualifications for recruitment to any post or class of posts have also to be specified by the Speaker under Rule 5. Rule 6 of the aforesaid R&CS Rules, 1955 provides that all appointments to posts in the Lok Sabha Secretariat shall be made by the Speaker and for the purpose, the Speaker may, by general or special order delegate his power to the Secretary or any other officer of the Secretariat to make appointments to any post or class of posts specified in such order, being posts other than posts in Group-A. Under the 1955 Rules, wide powers and responsibility have been given to the Speaker with regard to the affairs of the Secretariat, particularly in matters relating to appointments, promotions etc., within the Secretariat. This is in consonance with the well established conventions and precedents where the Presiding Officer of the Legislature i.e., the Speaker has always been given wide powers for running the affairs of the Secretariat. This Court in CW No. 4481 of 1996 in the case of P.K.Bhandari Vs. Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha & Ors., had held that the constitution has given unfettered powers to the Speaker for recruitment, appointment, promotions and fixing service conditions of the employees of the Lok Sabha. The Legislature is the third organ of the State. According to the scheme of the Constitution each organ is independent. The Speaker being the Head of the Lok Sabha enjoys a unique position. This Court had held that the Hon'ble Speaker is the operator and final interpreter of the 1955 Rules. This Court had also held that the rules, qualifications for recruitment and method of recruitment are really meant for the internal management of the House and the Constitution has given full authority to the Speaker to frame and amend them as and when required. It was also submitted that bare reading of clauses 3 to 8 of 1955 rules makes it clear that the Speaker is given complete authority for formulating the rules and regulations for recruitment and formulating service conditions of the employees of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. This Court had also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sh. Kihota Hollohon Vs. Zachilhu and Ors., . This Court relying on the Supreme Court judgment had held that the orders passed by the Speaker are final and courts have very limited jurisdiction to entertain the petitions against these orders. This Court had further held that in Parliamentary democracy, the office of the Speaker is held in the highest esteem and respect and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the powers of the Hon'ble Speaker. This Court had also followed the decision of the Supreme Court in P.K. Sandhu Vs. Hon'ble Speaker and Ors., (CWP No. 785 of 1997). Further, the decision of the High Court in P.K. Bhandari Vs. Hon'ble Speaker, (CWP No. 4481 of 1996) was upheld in LPA No. 176 of 1997 (P.K. Bhandari Vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha) and followed in Mange Ram Vs. Hon'ble Speaker (CWP No. 1996/97) and Mange Ram Vs. Hon'ble Speaker (CWP No. 243/98).

9. When this is the legal position, it was submitted by the learned counsel, the canteen located in Lok Sabha was not a departmental canteen at all. The said canteen was being run by Lok Sabha Secretariat club which was association of employees of Lok Sabha Secretariat whose office bearers were appointed by election by the members of the club. Till September 1984, this club was running the canteen. Therefore on a resolution adopted by general body of the club, a separate canteen committee was elected to run the canteen. On the formation of Lok Sabha Employees, Association, Lok Sabha Secretariat ceased to exist. This association is registered as society under the Societies Registration Act which came into effect in 1986. The running of canteen by canteen committee of the association is purely a welfare activity of the association. The various office bearers of the canteen committee are the elected members. The canteen was set up with a view to provide tea, coffee, snacks, lunch at reasonable rates and on no profit and no loss basis. It was entirely an internal affair of the association and the Secretariat had agreed to give subsidy of 70 per cent of wages of the daily wagers of the canteen as a welfare measure rather that under any obligation. No subsidy is granted by the Secretariat for the food and beverages sold by the canteen. There is no control of the Secretariat over this canteen. It was further submitted that within the Parliament Complex, the Railway Canteen is operating which can be used and is being used by both MPs as well as staff of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Thus Lok Sabha Secretariat was actually not in need of any other canteen. In fact the items sold in the Railway canteen are much cheaper than the ones sold in the canteen run by the association. The variety is also much wider in the railway canteen. Although Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Secretary General, are Chief Patron and Patron respectively of the association, the power to dissolve the canteen committee rest with the majority of 3/4th members of the general body specially convened for the purpose of the majority of 3/4th of total membership of the executive council. No rules were ever framed in the case of the daily wagers of the canteen by the association as in fact no such question arose as it was not necessary as they were not recruited as regular employees of the canteen. These canteens were not constituted strictly as per the scheme of the Government of India for running departmental canteens. It is not that the daily-wagers working in the staff canteens are not aware of the position that is is not a departmental canteen. Several times in the past, daily-wagers working therein were made clear that question of their regularisation did not arise and that Administration of the Lok Sabha Secretariat had no such responsibilities. Further, in 1984, in the context of the representations by some of the daily-wagers of the Canteen for regularisation of their services, then Joint Secretary(A) (Shri D.C.Pandey) had recorded on 24.8.1984 that: "It is not a departmental canteen under the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel. The judgment of the Supreme Court is not relevant in the present case. The President of the Lok Sabha Secretariat club had been informed about this vide our note dated 27.5.1981. The position may be made clear to him again. "This had the approval of then Secretary-General. The President of the Lok Sabha Secretariat Employees Association Club was accordingly informed. It was also submitted that the petitioners are relying on the said two office memoranda No. 12/5/91-Dir.(C) dated 29.1.1992 and No.3/4/96-Dir.(C) dated 20.3.1997 of the Govt. of India which relate to the appointment of employees in the Central Government and are applicable to Canteen employees located in Central Govt. Offices. The Lok Sabha Secretariat is not a department of the Central Govt. and their employees are not Central Govt. employees. Hence, these orders do not apply to the Lok Sabha Secretariat as the Secretariat is an independent organ of the State. No orders of the GOI are automatically applicable to the Secretariat unless extended by the orders of the Hon'ble Speaker. Under the R&CS Rules, 1955, the entire field of appointments and numerous other issues is occupied by the Speaker's orders passed under Clause 3 to 8 of the said rules. That in pursuance of the above orders, GOI have decided that all canteens which were opened before 1.10.1991 but could not be registered by the cut off date due to various reasons, be allowed to continue to function as before. The employees working in such canteens will also be declared as Government Employees w.e.f. 1.10.1991 in terms of the instruction issued vide DOPT OM No.12/5/91-Dir.(C) dated 29.1.1992. However, the above benefits will accrue to the canteens on fulfillling the following conditions:-

a) That the canteen/Tiffin Room was set up by departmental authorities before Ist October, 1991; and

b) That the employees in the Canteen/Tiffin Room were recruited in a proper manner and such recruitment was made on a regular basis.

10. It was also submitted that even as per the conditions laid down in the aforesaid two Office Memoranda of the GOI, the benefits as are available to the Government employees of comparable status cannot be extended to them as they do not fulfill the two conditions laid down in the said two Office Memoranda. The setting up of staff canteens in Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe, was purely a welfare activity of the Club/Association and all its activities were/are being managed by the Club/Association although Lok Sabha Secretariat had agreed to grant a subsidy of 70% of the wages of the daily-wagers of the canteen as a welfare measure rather than under any obligation as they alone were not in a position to run the canteen. Further the daily-wagers working in the staff canteens were engaged on daily wages and they were not recruited by the Administrative Authority of the Lok Sabha Secretariat under any set of orders/rules and their engagement was not on regular basis and hence, they cannot be categorised as employees of the Secretariat as the Establishment has no control over them. It was also submitted that on persistent demand by the daily-wagers of the canteen for their regularization/regular employment in this Secretariat, the matter was examined by the Secretariat and it was decided that the persons working in the staff canteen can be considered for absorption in the Secretariat as Addt. Grade IV (Farrash) provided the functioning of the staff canteen is closed down and additional extension counter of the Railway Catering Service is set up in the Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe building for providing services on subsidised rates to staff members of the Secretariat. A meeting with the representatives of the Club/Association was also held on 12.9.1996 to discuss the matter wherein it, was decided to wind up the canteens by 15.10.1996 and make arrangement for simultaneous extension of Railway Catering facility in the space so vacated. In this regard, the Secretary General held a meeting on 7.1.1997 with the officials of the Railways to discuss the issues regarding opening of the Railway Canteens in Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe consequent of closing of staff canteens run by the Club/Association in Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe. However, they expressed their inability to extend their on the following grounds:-

i) Already Lok Sabha Secretariat Staff are availing of Railway Canteen facilities in the Parliament Reception. This can continue.

ii) The Railways are not in a position to open additional service facilities in the second floor of the Parliament House or in the PHA as they are already over-stretched.

iii) Opening more service counters may have adverse impact on their service to MPs.

(iv) Even for the Railways own staff, they are not providing service of the nature now requested for. The employees run their canteen themselves.

11. The above position was clarified to the Lok Sabha Employees Club/Association on 16.1.1997. It was also submitted that since the Railway Authorities expressed their inability to extend their services, the Hon'ble Speaker approved that the Secretariat cannot blindly absorb these dailywagers as Attd. Gr. IV (Farrash) as the absorption was provided to be considered in the contingency of staff canteen being taken over by the Railways. That the petitioners working in the canteen run by the Club/Association were not recruited by the Administrative Authority of the Secretariat and hence they are not employees of the Secretariat. The petitioners were recruited by the Club/Association itself and at no stage they took prior permission or even consulted the Administrative Authority for their recruitment in the canteen. Since they were not recruited in a proper manner the benefits as contained in the two office memoranda cannot be extended to them. It was also submitted that no posts exist or have been created under the 1955 rules against which the petitioners can be absorbed. Further recruitment in Lok Sabha Secretariat can only be done as per rules framed by the Hon'ble Speaker and the 1955 rules. The petitioners were not recruited by the Lok Sabha Secretariat and were not recruited as per rules framed by the Hon'ble Speaker and the 1955 rules. The Hon'ble Speaker cannot be forced to create new posts which don't exist and make recruitment contrary to 1955 rules and orders passed by him from time to time. It is the discretion of the Speaker to create new posts if he so chooses to do in the needs of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. However, the Hon'ble Speaker cannot be forced to create new posts.

12. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Neeraj Kaul argued that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable. No right much less fundamental right of the petitioners was violated and there was neither any cause of action in their favour nor locus standi to file the petition. The learned counsel cited the following judgments in support of his submission:

     1)  Employers  of  relation to the Management of  RBI  Vs.  Their      Workman reported in 1996 (2) SLR 508. 
 

     2)  Satyanarayan Sharma & Ors. Vs. National  Mineral  Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1990 (3) All India SLJ 47. 
 

     3)  State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma &  Anr.  . 
 

     4)  A.K.Mishra  & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. reported in  1992  (1)  All India SLJ 201. 
 

     5)  State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar, .  
 

13. In his rejoinder, Mr. Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated his submissions made earlier and emphasised that it was not disputed that the petitioners were working for long period, the canteens were being run for the benefit of employees of Lok Sabha Secretariat and norms laid down by the Government in respect of departmental canteens were applicable in the case of these canteens also and therefore they were to be treated as departmental canteens. In these circumstances, the various office memoranda issued by the Government were applicable. It was further submitted that Hon'ble Speaker did not have unfettered administrative powers under Article 98(3) of the Constitution for the following reasons:

(1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.M.R Khan's case and later followed by CK Jha's case has clearly stated that employees of statutory/non-statutory canteens who have been working on adhoc basis for number of years, their service has to be regularised.

(2) The Apex Court in various rulings (including the Gold Mines" case and Haryana Bijli Board's case) have stated that ad hoc employees in long term employment may have to be regularised.

(3) Under provision of Article 98(3), the powers of the Speaker are only delegated ones and the actual power lies with the President. Under Rule 8 of the Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1955 and the R.O. issued No. 64 dated 2nd September, 1957 makes it incumbent upon the Speaker to adopt all Government of India's rules with modifications, if any.

Also Rule 9 of the same R&CS Order of 1955 stipulates that if no such orders have been issued by the Speaker, then Government of India's orders will be applicable to the employees of Lok Sabha Secretariat.

(4) It was also submitted that in P.K. Sandhu's and P.K. Bhandari's cases the Courts have issued directions to the Speaker in such administrative matters and Lok Sabha Secretariat has implemented the same by framing necessary rules. Therefore this court may please issue a direction to Lok Sabha Secretariat to implement the judgments of C.K. Jha's case for the benefit of employees of Lok Sabha canteen as stipulated in the Government of India's OMs dated 24-29th January, 1994 or any other later ones, if any.

14. In order to decide the present case, one need not indulge into detailed discussion and go into the niceties of the legal character of Lok Sabha Secretariat. The admitted position is that Lok Sabha Secretariat is an independent body, independent of Central Government both administratively or financially. The legal status of Lok Sabha Secretariat now stands concluded by the judgment in the case of P.K.Bhandari's case (supra) and other judgments reference to which have already been made above. Insofar as present canteen is concerned, in view of detailed submissions made by Mr.Kaul which deserve to be accepted, it cannot be treated as departmental canteen of the Govt. It also cannot be said that there is any statutory obligation of Lok Sabha Secretariat to run this canteen. The canteen is being run by Canteen Committee of the Lok Sabha Employees Association and this association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Further, admittedly within the Parliament complex itself railway canteen is operating which in fact is being used by both MPs and staff of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, left to Lok Sabha Secretariat, as per their stand, they in fact do not even need any other canteen. Items sold in the railway canteen are much cheaper than the ones sold in the canteen run by the association. The canteen therefore cannot be called as departmental canteen.

15. In view of aforesaid admitted facts what should be the legal status of such canteen or the employees working in the canteen came recently for discussion before Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle) & Ors. and referring to catena of judgments involving this aspect, the Court held that employees of the canteens would not become the employees of the bank. The perusal of the judgment would show that Supreme Court felt that two questions were required to be dealt with and formulated the same in paras 19 and 20 of the judgment. These paras are quoted below :-

"Para 19 : At the time of hearing of these appeals the learned counsel for the parties submitted that for deciding these matters following two questions would be required to be dealt with by this Court :-

(i) Although, it is not a statutory obligation to provide canteen, whether it is otherwise an obligation of the bank to provide canteen?

or

Whether it has an obligation to provide facilities to run the canteen?

Para 20: It is admitted position that in law if there is an obligation to provide a canteen, the employees working in the canteen would be employees of the Bank, and if not, the employees working in the canteen may not become part of the establishment.

(ii) Secondly, whether the petition for same cause of action was maintainable after the order dated 14.10.1985, passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 840/1977, wherein the Award passed by Justice Moidu was challenged and this Court substituted the said Award by passing the order - "the settlement is recorded and the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise" on the basis of application filed by the parties."

16. We are not concerned with second question in the instant case. So far as first question is concerned, after going through various provisions including Sastry Award, the Court found that there was neither any statutory nor legal or contractual obligation of the bank to run the canteen or provide for canteen in its expenses. On the basis of these established facts, the Court proceeded to restate the legal position in the following words :-

"Para 30: In the present case also, the facts are similar. There is no obligation statutory or otherwise to run the canteens by the Bank. The scheme as stated above only provides for grant of subsidy, for promoting running of canteen and if some more cost is incurred in running the canteen, the members of the staff working in that particular branch are required to bear it. The Bank is not employing the canteen workers. The Bank is not super vising or controlling the work or the details regarding the canteen or its employees appointed by the Local Implementation Committee. Auditing the work of Local Implementation Committee-whether subsidy given by it is properly utilised or not, also would not be a ground for holding that Bank is having any control in running the canteen. Bank is not taking any disciplinary action or directing any canteen employee to do a particular work or for that purpose no scheme is laid down by the Bank. Not only this, the other most important aspect is `the recruitment' by the Bank is to be made as per the statutory rules framed by it after giving proper advertisement, test and/or interview. As against this, for appointing a canteen employee there are no rules framed by the Bank.

Para 31: Learned counsel for the employees referred to clause (12) of the Scheme which provides that canteen should be run on 'no profit no loss' basis. The said clause also makes it clear that subsidy provided is only to the extent of funds made available and that concerned members of the LIC would ensure that articles are purchased on cash payment and no liability is incurred from any source. It has nothing to do with the running of the canteens by the Bank. It is part of the scheme which provides how efficiently the LIC should run the canteens.

Para 32: Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the decision in M.M.R. Khan and others Vs. Union of India and Others and submitted that status of the employees of the canteen run by the LIC should be that on non-statutory recognized canteens as held in the said case. In our view, that very judgment was considered by this Court in R.B.I.'s case and was distinguished. Therefore, it does not require further discussion in this matter. However, it is to be stated that in that judgment itself, the Court has observed that the canteens run by the different Railway establishments were classified into three categories, namely.

(1) Statutory Canteens - These are canteens required to be provided compulsorily in view of Section 46 of the Factories Act 1948.

(2) Non-Statutory Recognized Canteens - These are run by any establishment which may or may not be governed by the Act, but which admittedly employ 250 or less than 250 employees and hence, it is not obligatory on the Railway to maintain them. However, they have been set up as a staff welfare measure where employees exceed 100 in number. These canteens are established with prior approval and recognition of the Railway Board as per the prescribed detailed in the Railway Establishment Manual.

(3) Non-statutory Non-recognized canteens - These canteens are run at establishments under category (2) above, but employ 100 or less than 100 employees and are established without prior approval or recognition of the Railway Board. With regard to the employees in categories (1) and (2) above, the Court held that they are Railway employees for all purposes and they cannot be deprived of the status merely because some other employees similarly or dissimilarly situated may also claim the same status. With regard to the third category, the Court held that employees of non-statutory non-recognized canteens are not entitled to claim the status of the Railway servants because Railway administration was having no control on their working. It also observed that no rules whatsoever were application to the recruitment of the workers and their service conditions.

Para 33 : In the present case, in our view, the canteens run by the LIC in a branch having strength of less than 100 employees are non-statutory non-recognized canteens because admittedly there is neither statutory provision nor any obligation arising out of award or contract between the employees of the Bank in running such canteens. As stated earlier, finally the 4th settlement was arrived at between All India SBI Staff Federation and the Bank which inter alia provides that Bank will take over canteens from Local Implementation Committees concerned at such offices/branches having a minimum staff strength of 100 where the canteens are still being run by the said Committees. Hence, contractual obligation is limited to that extent. For the canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees, there is no question of its recognition by the State Bank as in the case of recognised canteens in the Railways where Railway Board granted recognition to the canteens as per prescribed detail in the Railway Establishment Manual. On the contrary, the status of canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees would be nonstatutory non-recognised canteens. The employees of such canteens were not under the control of the Bank and their appointments are not governed by any rules framed by the SBI."

17. Thereafter Court referred to the contention of the counsel for employees and reliance by them upon the decision in Parimal Chandra Raha & Ors. Vs. LIC & Ors. (supra) and stated that said case had no obligation in the case in hand before the Court as there was no statutory or otherwise obligation on the employer to provide the canteen. Discussion contained in paras 36 & 37 is also relevant for our purpose and therefore it would be useful to reproduce these paras also:

"Para 36 : Further, we entirely agree with the decision rendered in the R.B.I.'s case (supra) by the three-Judge Bench and the facts in the present case are similar to the facts of that case. Presuming that privilege of providing canteen facilities to the employees exit, yet it would be difficult to hold that the Bank should provide the said facility by running canteen by itself. To promote canteen facilities by providing subsidy or other facilities is altogether different from running the canteen. Running of a canteen in a small branch having staff strength less than a particular limit may not be economical, but may be a waste. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Bank that in some areas, staff strength may be less than 10. Further, the appointment of the employees by the Bank has been regulated by the State Bank of India General Regulations, which are statutory regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India with previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section 93) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. In the case of canteen employees run by the LIC, the Bank does not have any control in their appointment and the aforesaid recruitment rules are not required to be observed.

Para 37: We may mention here that learned counsel for the employees submitted that in such cases Court should lift the veil and find out the real situation and if that is done it would be apparent that as a part of the service conditions Bank is required to provide canteen facility to its employees. We may state that there is no veil and, therefore, there is no question of lifting it. The Scheme framed by the Bank is crystal clear. It provides that Bank shall promote certain welfare activities for the benefit of its employees. One of such welfare activities is promotion of canteen facility. There is a vast difference between "promotion" and "providing".

18. The facts of the present case, as noticed above, are at pari-materia with the aforesaid SBI case. Following, the ratio of the aforesaid case, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

19. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged.