Mandamus against private canteen duty under Article 226 was unavailable, but canteen workers were treated as employees of the establishment.

A statutory obligation to maintain a canteen under the Factories Act did not, by itself, create a public duty enforceable by mandamus under Article 226, because the duty was treated as a labour welfare incident of a private commercial undertaking rather than an obligation owed to the public at large. At the same time, the canteen workers were found to be employees of the establishment for the purposes accepted by the Tribunal, given the employer's substantial control over premises, equipment, wages, supervision, and canteen operations, with the contractor acting in only a nominal capacity. The appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lay against a private company in respect of the canteen maintained under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948; (ii) Whether the canteen workers were to be treated as employees of the company for all service-related purposes.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lay against a private company in respect of the canteen maintained under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948.

Analysis: Article 226 extends to any person or body performing a public duty, but not every obligation imposed by statute amounts to a public duty enforceable by mandamus. The obligation to provide a canteen under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 was treated as a labour welfare requirement connected with the conditions of service of workmen, not as a duty owed to the public at large. The company's manufacture and sale of cigarettes was a private commercial activity, and the canteen obligation was only incidental to that activity. On that basis, the writ court was held to lack jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the footing of a public duty.

Conclusion: A writ of mandamus did not lie against the company on the basis of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948.

Issue (ii): Whether the canteen workers were to be treated as employees of the company for all service-related purposes.

Analysis: The evidence showed long-standing operation of the canteen within the factory premises, continuity of the same workers despite changes of contractors, supply of premises, equipment and utilities by the company, reimbursement of wages, and pervasive supervision and control over menu, quality, quantity and rates. These features indicated that the contractor had only nominal role and that the canteen functioned under the company's complete control. The Tribunal's findings similarly established administrative, financial and disciplinary control over the workers, supporting the conclusion that the workers were in substance employees of the establishment.

Conclusion: The canteen workers were held to be employees of the company for the purposes found by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: Although the writ jurisdiction objection succeeded in principle, the substantive findings on the status of the canteen workers were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory obligation to maintain a canteen for workmen is not, by itself, a public duty enforceable by mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but where the employer exercises complete control over the canteen's functioning, the canteen workers may be treated as employees of the establishment.

---