Unit Run Canteen Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India

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. 2018:DHC:2484

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 nongrant 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:-

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.

JUDGE APRIL 17, 2018 dkb