MOHAN SINGH & Ors. v. THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD S;q_Rs

1.2 So far as the second requirement mandatory to constitute a premises including its precincts as factory, it cannot be disputed that the subject Canteen is situated within the precincts of the office of the ORM, Moradabad and more than 1000 workers are working in those precincts. As regards "manufacturing process" is being carriect on within the premises, it cannot be said that no D manufacturing activity is carried out within the ORM Office of Moradabad, where the subject Canteen is located. It cannot be disputed that railway wagons are repaired and maintained at the Moradabad Division. It is also not disputed that the Moradabad Division carries E on other activities such as repairing of faulty signals, sanitation systems, loading and unloading of goods, supply of power continuously for railway tracks, railway station etc. Thus, it has perforce to be inferred that F manufacturing process is being carried out at the· Moradabad Division. [Paras 14, 15] [868-D-E; 869-C-E]

1.3 The ORM Office of Morada bad Division along with all the appurtenant lands, yards, etc. are 'premises' within the contemplation of the Factories Act. A comprehensive G reading of the Factories Act, 1948 clearly shows that the word "premises" can refer to an entire area, which may have several separate buildings, within it, or which may correspond to an open yard. Further, an important point to consider is that the definition of "manufacturing H I ,___ MOHAN SINGH v. THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD 857 process" does not mandate that the manufacturing A activities should be carried on in one building alone. Whatthis ~efinition really deals with is the nature of the work done and not with where that work is to be done. It must, therefore, be held that all the requirements of the term "factory" as defined under Section 2(m) of the Act B are satisfied on the facts of the instant case. Thus, the premises of ORM, Moradabad must be also treated as a factory under the Factories Act, 1948 in which case Moradabad Canteen shall ipso facto corresponded to a 'Statutory Canteen' within the meaning of Section 46 of C the Act. [Para 16] [869-H; 870-A, C-F]

1.4 The employees in the statutory canteens of the Railways will have to be treated as Railway servants. Thus, the relationship of employer and employee stands D created between the Railway Administration and the canteen employees from the very inception. [Para 17] [871-C-D]

1.5 The subject Canteen is a 'Statutory Canteen' E under the Factories Act, 1948 and that the Single Judge· had arrived atthe correct conclusion. The Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in taking a contrary view. The impugned Judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the Respondents are directed to treat F the subject Canteen at Moradabad as a Statutory Canteen either under Section 46 of the Act or the relevant clauses of the Indian Railway Establishment Management. However, it is difficult to condone or ignore the fact that the appellants were not appointed as per G the regular recruitment procedure. To pass an order regularizing the services of all workers employed therein would necessarily imply ratification of appointments given outside the Constitutional scheme. Therefore, the H respondents are directed to consider regularizing the 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A services of the appellants presently serving as canteen workers in consonance with the principles laid down in *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi c~se and as and when the subject posts fall vacant the Respondents would be bound to fill the posts by a regular process of B selection. [Para 18] [871-E-H; 872-A-B]

1.6 There cannot be any cavil that the necessity for canteen amenities to be available where more than 250 workmen are engaged, is an essential facet of human or labour rights. Managements and employers are duty bound to provide these basic facilities. [Para 19] [872-D] *Secretary, State of karnataka v. Uma Devi AIR ·2006 SC 1806- relied on.