Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547
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
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.
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.
- Ask: Who appointed the worker?
- Check: Who controls/supervises them?
- 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
Related Cases
- Decisions on outsourced services in factories (canteens, security, housekeeping).
- Cases distinguishing principal employer from contractor in labour disputes.
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now