Telco Canteen Employees Union through its General Secretary Vishnu Kumar Kamat, son of Late v. 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Telco Limited now Tata Motors Limited, Jamshedpur, P.O
Case Details
2025:JHHC:34835-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 486 of 2023 Telco Canteen Employees Union through its General Secretary Vishnu Kumar Kamat, son of Late Sitaram Kamat, resident of Holding No.15, Sidgora Bagan Area, Road No.4, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sidgora Town of Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. --- --- Appellant Versus 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Telco Limited now Tata Motors Limited, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Town of Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum through its Managing Director. 3. General Manager, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (now Tata Motors Limited), Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Town of Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum through its Managing Director. 4. H.N. Parikh & Co. having its office at Basant Talkies Building, Sakchi, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town of Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant : For the Resp.No.2 & 3: --- Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Ms. Anjana Rana, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate 19/19.11.2025 Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Though the respondent no.4 was served with a notice, but none appears to represent respondent no.4. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.6385 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by
Decision
the writ petitioner/appellant against the order dated 24.08.1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No.03 of 1993 allowing the 2 impleadment of respondent no.4 as a party in the said reference case has been dismissed. 3. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant that it is clearly established that there was an employer-employee relationship between M/s. Telco Limited and the petitioners. It has been submitted that the learned Presiding Officer had failed to take into consideration that on an earlier occasion a similar prayer for impleadment of the respondent no.4 was made which however was rejected on 10.12.1993 on the ground that the respondent no.4 is not a necessary party to the reference. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel has further submitted that even the learned Single Judge has observed that no relief has been sought for against the respondent no.4. It has been submitted that M/s Telco Limited is registered under the Factories Act and it was compulsory for the company to have set up a canteen and merely because the canteen was being managed by the respondent no.4 who was acting as an agent of M/s Telco Limited, the petitioner cannot be said to be the employees of the agent i.e. respondent no.4. There is a statutory obligation on the part of M/s. Telco Limited to maintain the canteen as envisaged under the provisions of Factories Act to which it is registered and in no circumstances it can be said that there was an employer and employee relation between the respondent no.4 and the petitioner. Learned senior counsel adds that despite the rejection of the earlier application preferred for impleadment of respondent no.4 as a party to Reference Case No.03/1993 but the said order has been given a complete go bye in the subsequent order dated 24.08.1994 and which fact has not at all been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. In support of his contention that no employer employee relationship can exist between an agent i.e. respondent no.4 and the employees, reference has been made to the case of Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. 3 Vrs. Ramanlal Chimanlal & Ors. reported in 1973 L.I.C. 1040. 4. In the circumstances noted above, Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant has therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.6385 of 2018. 5. Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the earlier order of rejection of the prayer for impleadment of the respondent no.4 as a party to Reference Case No.03/1993 will not act as an estoppel and this fact has been appropriately considered by the learned Single Judge. It has further been submitted that if the contentions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant is taken into consideration, it will virtually amount to deciding the lis between the parties despite Reference Case No.03/1993 still pending before the learned Tribunal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the various affidavits on record. 7. Since there was a dispute between the petitioners who happened to be the canteen employees of M/s Telco Limited and M/s Telco Limited, Jamshedpur with respect to their status as employees of M/s Telco Limited or its contractor, a reference was made before the Tribunal in Reference Case No.03/1993 and the terms of reference reads as follows : A. Whether relationship employer and employees establishes between employees working in Telco Canteen and M/s Telco Ltd. Jamshedpur if so, what should be designation, pay and other facilities of employees working in Telco Canteen. B. Whether termination of services of Sarveshri Dasrath Kamt, Gopal Prasad, Shivlal, Vishnu Kumar Kamat, Jagdish Kamat, Yadavnath, Subhash, Krishnadeo Mahato is proper? If not, whether they should be re- given instated on work or/and compensation. should be 4 8. During the pendency of the reference case, an application was preferred on behalf of M/s Telco Limited with a prayer for impleadment of the respondent no.4 as a party to Reference Case No.03/1993. The same was rejected vide order dated 10.12.1993 by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi on the ground that the respondent no.4 cannot be said to be a necessary party as the respondent no.4 will not be affected by the award given in the reference. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no.4 had appeared in the reference case and had made an application for its impleadment in Reference case No.03/1993 which was allowed vide order dated 24.08.1994 by giving detailed reasons and which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(L) No.6385 of 2018. Although learned senior counsel for the appellant has stated that the subsequent allowing of the impleadment of the respondent no.4 as a party to Reference Case No.03/1993 was not permissible in view of its earlier rejection, but considering the fact that the earlier application was preferred by M/s Telco Limited while the subsequent application having been preferred by the respondent no.4 and it having been allowed by virtue of detailed reasons given by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi which fact has also been considered by the learned Single Judge allowing such application for impleadment would not act as an estoppel or resjudicata. We do not find any reason to differ with such findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, it has been submitted at the bar by the learned counsels for the respective parties that Reference Case No.03/1993 is still pending for adjudication and accepting the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant which has concentrated primarily on the employer employee relationship between M/s Telco Limited and the petitioner, would amount to deciding the lis itself which is beyond our domain. 5 9. Mr. Sharma has referred to the case of The Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. Vrs. Ramanlal Chimanlal & Ors. (supra) wherein it has been held as follows :- “9. The sole point which has been strenuously urged on behalf of the appellant is that on a proper construction of the amended clauses (13) and (14) of Section 3 of the Act, the workers employed in the canteen which was being run by the cooperative society, could not have been held to be employees of the appellant. It is contended that the appellant was under a statutory obligation because of Section 46 of the Factories Act and the relevant rules made thereunder to maintain the canteen for the workers, the the canteen was being actually run by nut cooperative society and the appellant had nothing to do with it nor did it pay any wages to the employees of the society who were working in the canteen. 10. The matter seems to be concluded by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1044 of 1968 decided on April 14, 1972, in which an identical argument had been that certain gardeners who had been addressed employed by a contractor for working in the gardens of the textile mills, could not be said to fall within the definition of the word “employed” as contained in Section 3(13) of the Act. In that case reference was made to the decision in Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Ujagar [AIR 1964 SC 355 : (1964) 2 SCR 838 : (1964) 2 SCJ 811 : (1963) 2 Lab LJ 447] . It had been held that the workmen fell within the definition of that word as given by Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as they were persons employed in the industry to do manual work for reward. The workmen had been employed by a contractor with whom the mills had contracted in the course of conducting the industry for execution by the said contractor of the work of removal of press mud which is ordinarily a part of the industry. 11. The above case was treated as an authority for the proposition that an employee engaged in a work or operation which was incidentally connected with the main industry was a workman if other requirements of the statute were satisfied and that the malis in that case were workers. It was pointed out that the bungalows and gardens on which the malis in that case worked were a kind of amenity supplied by the mills to its officers and on this reasoning the malis were held to be engaged in operation incidentally connected with the main industry the employer. The High Court carried out by in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [(1953) II LLJ 647] had relied on the above ratio and come to the conclusion that the workers in order to come within the definition of an “employee” Printing Calico 6 need not necessarily be directly connected with the manufacture of textile fabrics. The decision in Basti Sugar Mills case [AIR 1964 SC 355 : (1964) 2 SCR 838 : (1964) 2 SCJ 811 : (1963) 2 Lab LJ 447] was treated as binding in the former case. 12. Since, under the Factories Act it was the duty of the appellant to run and maintain the canteen for the use of its employees, it appears to us that the ratio of the decision in Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. Workmen would be fully applicable in which the same provisions of the Act were considered.” 10. It would appear that the case under reference arose out of a final order passed by the learned Labour Court which had occasioned the findings recorded in the said judgment. Making any particular reference to the judgment cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant would act as a detriment to the ultimate findings which are to be recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi and any finding would be pre-mature as the reference case is still said to be pending. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.6385 of 2018 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 19.11.2025 Shamim/ Uploaded on : 17/02 /2026