Delhi High Court
Unit Run Canteen Employees ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 17 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 17.04.2018
+ WP(C) 3422/2018
UNIT RUN CANTEEN EMPLOYEES WELFARE
ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mohak Bhadana and Mr.Ankush
Diwan, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..Respondents
Through: Mr.Gaurant Kanth, Central Govt.
Standing Counsel with Ms.Eshita Baruah,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. On an advance copy of the writ petition having been served on
the respondents, Mr.Gaurang Kanth, learned Central Government
Standing Counsel has put in his appearance.
2. The impugned order dated 28.08.2017 issued by the Deputy
Director, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment,
found that the dispute raised by the petitioner with the respondents
No.2 and 3 is not a fit case for reference to the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi (CGIT) for adjudication following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.R.Pillai (dead)
through LRs vs. Commanding Officer HQ SAC(U) & Ors. in Civil
Appeal No.3495/2005.
3. The impugned order dated 28.08.2017 reads as under:-
"Sub- ID between the workmen Sh. Subhas Chander
S/o Sh. Balbir Sigh and 6 (six) others through Unit
Run Canteen Employees Welfare Association, Delhi
against 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Union
of India, South Block 2. Deputy Director General
Services.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the failure of conciliation
report No.ALC-II/8(45)/16-NK dated 27/12/2017 from
the ALC, Delhi received in this Ministry on 30/12/2016,
on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima
facie, this ministry does not consider this dispute fit for
adjudication for the following reasons.
"The decision of three Judges Bench of
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in R.R.Pillai (Dead)
vs. Commanding Officers HQ SAC(U) and
others in Civil Appeal No.3495 of 2005. The
Management formulated fresh guidelines and
terms and conditions of services of Regular
Civilian Employees of Unit Run Canteen dated
11.8.2014. The workmen are being paid the
salary as per revised scales but without any
allowance like DA, HRA and CCA. The
dispute raised by workmen Sh.Subhash
Chander S/o Sh. Balbir Singh and 6 others
through their Union against the management of
Ministry of Defence and Deputy Director,
General Canteen Services with regard to non-
grant of allowance like DA, HRA etc. is not fit
for reference because the employees of Unit
Run Canteens are not govt. employees at par
with employees of CSD Depot, who are govt.
employees."
As per the portion explained above it is not fit case for
reference to the CGIT, New Delhi for adjudication."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pay and
benefits of Unit Run Canteen Employees are governed by the rules
issued by the Army Headquarters and for that reason the respondent
No.2 is the employer of the employees of Unit Run Canteen. He
submits that the respondent No.1 while refusing to refer the dispute to
CGIT misinterpreted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R.R.Pillai's case (supra). He submits that it is a genuine industrial
dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 which
reflects unreasonable disparity of the pay-scales, other emoluments
and benefits extended to their counterparts working in Canteen Store
Department (in short „CSD‟).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents rely upon judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.R.Pillai's case (supra). The larger
Bench in this case overruled its judgment in Union of India vs.
Mohd. Aslam 2001 (1) SCC 720. Paragraph 8, 9 and 11 of the
judgment in R.R.Pillai's case (supra) reads as under:-
"8. In the case of Aslam's case (supra) a Bench
of this court proceeded on incorrect factual
premises inasmuch as after noticing that the URCs
are not funded from the Consolidated Fund of
India, it went wrong in concluding that the URCs
are funded by CSD as well as the articles were
supplied by the CSD. Unfortunately, it did not
notice that no such funding is made by the CSD.
Further, only refundable loans can be granted by the
CSD to URCs at the rate of interest laid down by it
from time to time upon the application of URCs
seeking financial assistance. URCs can also take from
other Non Public Funds. Further observation
regarding supply is also not correct. URCs, in fact,
purchase articles from CSD depots and it is not an
automatic supply and relation between URCs and
CSDs is that of buyer and seller and not of
principal and the agent. This Court further went
wrong in holding that URCs are parts of CSDs
when it has been clearly stated that URCs are
purely private ventures and their employees are by
no stretch of imagination employees of the
Government or CSD. Additionally, in Aslam‟s case
(supra) reference was made to Chandra Raha and Ors.
V. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1995 Supp (2)
SCC 611). The Bench hearing the matter
unfortunately did not notice that there was no
statutory obligation on the part of the Central
Government to provide canteen services to its
employees. The profits generated from the URCs are
not credited to the Consolidated Funds, but are
distributed to the Non Public Funds which are used by
the units for the welfare of the troops. As per para
1454 of the 5 Regulations for the Air Force, 1964 the
losses incurred by the non public funds are not to be
borne by the State.
9. The factors highlighted to distinguish Chotelal‟s
case (supra) in our considered opinion are without any
material. There was no scope for making any
distinction factually between Aslam‟s case (supra)
and Chotelelal‟s case (supra). In our view, therefore,
Aslam‟s case (supra) was not correctly decided.
11. It is to be noted that financial assistance is
given, but interest and penal interest are charged. The
URCs can also borrow from financial institutions. The
reference is answered by holding that employees of
URCs are not government servants."
6. In view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
R.R.Pillai‟s case (supra), it is clear enough that the Unit Run Canteen
is purely a private venture and its employees are by no stretch of
imagination are the employees of Government or CSD and therefore
the reference to CGIT was rightly refused by the impugned order.
7. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
APRIL 17, 2018
dkb
