Statutory canteen workers are not automatically employees of the principal employer absent complete administrative control.

Employees working in a canteen maintained under a statutory obligation do not automatically become employees of the principal employer; the legal effect depends on how the canteen is actually run. Where the contractor is responsible for recruitment, supervision, wages, and labour-law compliance, and the principal employer provides only infrastructure and support, the arrangement is not enough to establish direct employment. A factual finding that the workers were employees of the contractor will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse, and reappreciation of evidence is impermissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether employees working in a canteen maintained pursuant to a statutory obligation under the Factories Act automatically become employees of the principal employer, and whether the finding of the fact-finding tribunal that they were employees of the contractor could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory obligation to provide a canteen does not, by itself, make the canteen workers employees of the establishment in every case. The legal effect depends on the manner in which the obligation is discharged, including whether the canteen is run directly by the establishment or through an independent contractor. The decisive consideration is whether the establishment exercised complete administrative control over the workers or whether the contractual arrangement was merely a camouflage. On the evidence, the agreement showed that the contractor was responsible for the running of the canteen, recruitment, supervision, payment of wages, and compliance with labour laws, while the principal employer provided only infrastructure and service support. The Labour Court's finding, based on oral and documentary evidence, was that the appellants were employees of the contractor. That finding was not shown to be perverse, and the High Court was not justified in reappreciating evidence under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The appellants were not shown to be employees of the principal employer, and the factual finding against them was not open to interference.

Final Conclusion: Contract labour engaged through a canteen contractor does not become employees of the principal employer merely because the canteen is maintained under a statutory obligation; the controlling question is factual and turns on actual supervision, administration, and employment control.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory canteen does not automatically create employment with the principal employer; such status arises only if the establishment is shown, on facts, to exercise complete administrative control and the contractor arrangement is a mere camouflage.

---