• Today: November 01, 2025

Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547

01 November, 2025
1201
Coates of India Canteen Case (2004) — Are Contractor-Run Canteen Staff “Workmen” of the Company?
LegalCase India Labour & Industrial Law ~7 min read

Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547

Supreme Court of India 2004 (2004) 3 SCC 547 Gulzar Hashmi 23 Oct 2025
Hero image for Coates of India canteen workmen case explainer

Quick Summary

Main Question: Are contractor-run canteen workers on a factory campus the company’s own workmen?

Answer: No. The Supreme Court held they are contractor’s employees. Coates did not directly appoint them and did not exercise supervisory control over them.

Issues

  • Do canteen workers become company employees just because they work inside the premises?
  • Does the Factories Act canteen requirement automatically make the company the employer?

Rules

Two essentials to fix employer status: (1) Direct appointment by the company, and (2) supervisory control by the company over the workers. If both are missing, they are not the company’s workmen.

Note: A statutory duty to run a canteen does not by itself decide employment status.

Facts (Timeline)

Simple Timeline
Coates of India Ltd. had a factory canteen as required under the Factories Act, 1948.
The canteen was run by an independent contractor, who hired and paid the staff.
Canteen workers sought recognition as the company’s workmen.
Labour tribunal: in favour of workmen. High Court: reversed—they were not company employees.
Supreme Court: examined direct appointment and supervisory control by Coates.
Timeline for Coates of India canteen employment-status case

Arguments

Workmen (Appellants)

  • They work inside the factory for factory staff; so they should be treated as Coates’ workmen.
  • Company benefits from the canteen; presence on premises implies control.

Coates (Respondent)

  • Workers were appointed, paid, and supervised by the contractor.
  • Coates had no direct control over their service conditions.
  • Statutory canteen duty ≠ employer–employee link.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the canteen workers were not workmen of Coates of India Ltd. They were employees of the contractor who ran the canteen. Neither direct appointment nor supervisory control by Coates was shown. The High Court’s view was affirmed.

Judgment visual for Coates of India canteen case

Ratio Decidendi

Who hired? Who controls? Without direct appointment and company supervision, canteen staff engaged through a contractor remain the contractor’s employees, even if the canteen is on-site and required by statute.

Why It Matters

  • Guides factories using outsourced canteens on employer liability.
  • Clarifies that premises + benefit alone don’t prove employment.
  • Separates statutory obligation from employment status.

Key Takeaways

Appointment

No direct appointment by Coates → not its workmen.

Control

No supervisory control by Coates over daily work.

Statute ≠ Status

Factories Act duty doesn’t fix employer identity.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “AD-C”Appointment • Direction–Control.

  1. Ask: Who appointed the worker?
  2. Check: Who controls/supervises them?
  3. Conclude: If neither is the company, status stays with the contractor.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Are contractor-run canteen workers the company’s workmen?

Rule: Employer identity depends on direct appointment and company’s supervisory control.

Application: Contractor hired, paid, and supervised staff; Coates lacked direct control; statutory canteen duty doesn’t change status.

Conclusion: Workers are employees of the contractor, not Coates of India Ltd.

Glossary

Supervisory Control
Company’s power to oversee work, discipline, and set daily instructions.
Principal Employer
Entity legally treated as the employer for labour-law purposes.
Statutory Canteen
A canteen mandated by the Factories Act; may be run in-house or via contractor.

Student FAQs

Premises ≠ Employer. Without direct appointment and control by the company, contractor staff stay contractor staff.

No. Support to the canteen does not equal employment control over staff.

If the company appoints them and exercises day-to-day supervision and control over their service conditions.

No. The duty to provide a canteen doesn’t automatically make the company the employer of canteen staff.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Labour Law Industrial Disputes Act Principal Employer Canteen
Back to Top

Comment

Nothing for now