Canteen workers treated as establishment employees where management fully supported the service and closure altered service conditions unlawfully.

Continuous canteen operations for bank staff, supported by the bank's premises, utilities, subsidies, and other infrastructure, were treated as part of the establishment, with the managing arrangement viewed as only a veil between the bank and the workers. On that basis, the canteen workers were regarded as employees of the bank. The closure of the canteen and continuation of a contractor during pendency of the industrial dispute were treated as an unlawful alteration of service conditions, so the relief granted by the Tribunal was sustained and the challenge by the bank failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the canteen workers were employees of the bank on the basis that the canteen had become part of the establishment and the bank had an implied obligation to provide canteen services. (ii) Whether the closure of the canteen and the continuation of a contractor during pendency of the industrial dispute were illegal and justified the reliefs granted by the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the canteen workers were employees of the bank on the basis that the canteen had become part of the establishment and the bank had an implied obligation to provide canteen services.

Analysis: The record showed that the canteen functioned in the bank premises, was meant exclusively for bank staff, and was supported by the bank through premises, furniture, utensils, electricity, water, fuel subsidy, and other infrastructure. The canteen was run over a long period through different agencies, but the bank retained active interest in its continuance, the workers were engaged under arrangements linked to the bank, and no capital contribution came from the workers or the managing committee. Applying the principles governing canteen cases, the cumulative facts established that the provision of canteen service had become part of the service conditions and that the managing arrangements were only a veil between the bank and the workers.

Conclusion: The canteen workers were rightly treated as employees of the bank, and the finding was in favour of the workmen.

Issue (ii): Whether the closure of the canteen and the continuation of a contractor during pendency of the industrial dispute were illegal and justified the reliefs granted by the Tribunal.

Analysis: Since the canteen service had become an incident of the establishment, the closure of the canteen and the engagement of a contractor during the pendency of the disputes amounted to an unlawful alteration in service conditions and attracted the statutory protection invoked before the Tribunal. The factual foundation accepted by the Tribunal supported the conclusion that the workers were entitled to relief, including the consequences flowing from the illegal closure.

Conclusion: The closure was held illegal and the relief granted on that basis was sustained, in favour of the workmen.

Final Conclusion: The bank's challenge failed, and the award restoring the workers' status and reliefs was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the totality of circumstances shows that canteen services are continuously provided by the management for its employees, with substantial financial, infrastructural, and supervisory involvement, the canteen becomes part of the establishment and the workers are treated as employees of the management.

---