T.N. Agricultural University vs Socialist Thozilalar Sangam, Coimbatore and Another

S.T. Ramalingam, J.—The employees working in the mess attached to the hostel run by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University raised a

dispute through their union for certain monetary benefits and for improvement in the conditions of their service. Those persons belong to various

categories including cooks, assistant cooks, cleaners and servers. The dispute not having been settled in conciliation, the Government made a

reference before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, which entertained the dispute as Industrial Dispute No. 207 of 1990. The petitioner who was the

respondent before the Labour Court, contended that the University is not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and even assuming it is so

governed, still there is no relationship of master and servant or employer and employee between the petitioner herein and the employees

represented by their union. It contested the various claims of the workers on merits also.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa 1978-I-LLJ-349 the Labour Court held that an

university would come within the definition of Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, he took up for consideration whether the

university could be described as the employer under whose control, the cooks, assistant cooks, etc., may be said to be employed. It is the case of

the university that though the hostel is run by the university and the employees in the hostel were the employees of the University, in so far as the

mess attached to the hostel is concerned, that was independent and separate and the persons who worked in the mess, viz., cooks, assistant

cooks, etc., were not appointed, controlled or paid by the university. Consequently, there is no employer-employee relationship between the two.

On this question, the Labour Court referred to the various provisions of the University Act, which contemplate the running of a hostel for the

benefit of the students. The statute also specifies that the students may be provided with a hostel, cafeteria and other facilities. Thereafter, the

Labour Court rendered a finding that under the direct control of the warden who constitutes a purchase and amenities committee consisting of

representatives of students residing in the hostel, the mess is being run. The expenses for the building in the mess, providing furniture therein and

purchase of infrastructural facilities for the running of the mess were all found to have been provided by the university. The Labour Court found that

the purchase and amenities committee is not the employer and they are only the beneficiaries of the facility of the mess. It was found that since the

warden is in overall charge of the mess and as the warden is employed by the university, the mess can rightly be said to be run by the university

itself.

It is in the above view, the Labour Court held that there is relationship of employer and employee between the university and the workers

employed in the mess. Thereafter, on discussing the merits of the various claims made by the workers, certain reliefs were given to them.

In attacking the correctness of this order of the Labour Court, Sri R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned counsel, would submit that the provisions of

the University Act and the statute and regulations referred to in the order of the Labour Court, all concern only with the establishment of the hostel

and no part of it deals with a mess which is an independent entity. He would submit that even though the hostel may be part of the university, the

mess is not. The petitioner contends, it is not as if that every hostel should have a mess attached to it. The hostel can function without a mess.

These contentions of the petitioner are not accepted by the first respondent''s counsel who would plead that the finding rendered by the Labour

Court based on factual material cannot be interfered with.

The Labour Court has rightly found not merely on the basis of the provisions of the University Act, the statute and the regulations, but it found

on appreciation of the facts and materials placed before it that the purchase and amenities committee which is a committee consisting of not

permanent members, but students for the time being studying in the college and residing in the hostel, is not really the employer. No proof was

forthcoming that any cooks, assistant cooks or cleaners were appointed by that purchase and amenities committee. It is also not established that

the committee had the power of superintendence and control including disciplinary control over the said employees. It is proved on evidence that

the warden who was an employee of the university, was in overall control of the mess and when such was finding of fact rendered by the Labour

Court which is based on acceptable materials, this Court cannot reappraise that evidence and come to a different conclusion, constrained by the

restrictive jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is in that view, this writ petition is dismissed.

However, there will be no order as to costs.