SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                   [2014] 10 S.C.R. 447


               SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS.                          A
                            v.
               UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
             (SLP (Civil) No. 25721 of 2014)
                 SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
                                                              B
  [H.L. DATTU AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

     Service Jaw: Regularisation - Claim by canteen workers
engaged by Mess/Canteen run in the S& T Training Centre,
Railways that they be treated as railway employees and C
regulariz.ed in conformity with the statutory provisions as
applicable to non-statutory canteens of the Railway
administration - Held: Tribunal is the f;nal fact-finding
authorfty - Tribunal held that the petitioners were working in
a non-statutory non-recognised canteen - There is no reason D
to interfere with the said finding - Petitioners failed to place
on record any documents before the Tribunal to support the
fact that sanction was granted by the Railway Board,
recognising the Mess being run at the S& T Training Centre,
as a non-statutory recognised canteen - Therefore, since E
there is no material placed on record, regarding the grant of
sanction by Railway before any forum to highlight that the said
Mess was of the nature of non-statutory recognised canteen,
such a sanction cannot be assumed - Railway Establishment
Manual - Rule 2831 - Constitution of India, 1850 - Art. 136 F
- Scope of.

    Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court

     HELD: 1. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding
authority. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under   G
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot
normally interfere with the findings of fact of a Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the petitioners were working in a
non-statutory non-recognised canteen. There is no
                           447                                H
   448     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A reason to interfere with the said finding. The petitioners
  relied upon an unsigned copy of letter dated 09.11.1976
  to show that a refundable advance was sanctioned for
  the Mess Management Committee and that the said
  advance was approved by the Railway Board. The said
B unsigned letter was brought on record for the first time
  only before the High Court of Delhi in the review petition.
  The authenticity of the said letter was rightly doubted by
  the High Court, and therefore, the same could not amount
  to the due sanction of the canteen granted by the
c Railway Board. According to Rule 2831 of the Railway
  Establishment Manual, for the grant of such sanction for
  recognition of the canteen, the Railway Board must be
  approached, prior to starting the said canteen. The
  petitioners failed to place on record any documents
  before the Tribunal to support the fact that sanction was
0
  granted by the Railway Board, recognising the Mess
  being run at the S&T Training Centre, as a non-statutory
  recognised canteen. Therefore, since there is no material
  placed on record, regarding the grant of sanction by
E Railway before any forum to highlight that the said Mess
  was of the nature of non-statutory recognised canteen,
  such a sanction cannot be assumed. [Paras 11, 14 to 18]
  [453-G-H; 455-C-H; 456-C-E]

       S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC
F 1: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422; Hazma Haji v. State of Kera/a
  2006 (7) sec 416 : 2006 (4) Suppl. scR 604 - held
  inapplicable.

       MMR Khan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1990) Suppl.
G SCC 191 :1990 SCR 687; Metroark Ltd. v. CCE (2004) 12
  SCC 505; Pragati Computers (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs
  2000 (10) SCC 150; Reliance Silicon (/) (P) Ltd. v. CCE
  (1997) 1 SCC 215: 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 501; Asian Paints
  India Ltd. V. CCE (1988) 2 sec 470: 1988 (3) SCR 339;
H Collector of Customs v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. 1988 Supp
    SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA                449


796; Piara Singh v. Natha Singh 1991 Supp (2) SCC 289;             A
Traders and Traders v. Ramnarayan Bhattad 1995 Supp (2)
sec 661 - relied on.
                     Case Law Reference:
  1990 SCR 687                   relied on           Para 6        B

  (2004) 12 sec 505              relied on           Para 11
  2000 (1 o) sec 150             relied on           Para 11
  1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 501 relied on                  Para 11       c
  1988 (3) SCR 339               relied on           Para 11
   1988 Supp 796                 relied on           Para 11
  1991 Supp (2) sec 289          relied on           Para 12
                                                                   D
  1995 Supp (2) sec 661          relied on           Para 13
   1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422 held inapplicable Para 19
  2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 604 held inapplicable Para 19
                                                                   E
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
25721 of 2014.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 30.03.2012 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3774 of
2011 and final Judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 of the          F
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Second Review Petition
No. 117 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3774 of 2011.

    Jagdev Singh Manhas for the Petitioners.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     G

    H.L. DATTU, J. 1. This special leave petition(s) is directed
against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3774 of 2011, dated
                                                                   H
    450     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A 30.03.2012 and final judgment and the order passed by the
  High Court of Delhi in Second Review Petition No.117 of 2014
  in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3774 of 2011, dated 09.05.2014.

       2. The matter arose before the High Court of Delhi against
B order dated 21.09.2010 passed in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009 and
  against review order dated 16.11.2010 in R.A. No. 295 of 2010
  in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009, passed by the Central Administrative
  Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal
  dismissed the plea of the petitioners-herein to be regularised
C in the services of the respondents-herein.

         3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed against the orders
    of the Tribunal by the petitioners in the High Court of Delhi
    claiming regularization of their services as Railway Employees.
    The Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment and order
D   dated 30.03.2012, dismissed the said writ petition, on the
    ground that there was no document placed on record to
    recognise the Mess, being run at the Signalling and
    Telecommunication Training Centre, Northern Railway,
    Ghaziabad (for short, "the S&T Training Centre"), as a non-
E   statutory recognised canteen. The Court held that the said Mess
    was not sanctioned by the Railway Board, in accordance with
    rule 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual, in order to be
    classified as a non-statutory recognised canteen. Thereafter,
    the High Court of Delhi, by order dated 09.05.2014, found no
F   merit in the review petition filed against its judgment and order
    dated 30.03.2012. The petitioners, in the review petition before
    the High Court of Delhi, had additionally placed a letter dated
    09.11.1976, an unsigned typed copy, to indicate that an
    advance had been sanctioned to the Mess Management
G   Committee and that the said advance was approved by the
    Railway Board vide its letter dated 01.11.1976. However, the
    High Court was of the view that the mere payment of refundable
    advance would not lead to grant of proper sanction by the
    Railway Board and that the said letter cannot be considered,
    authorising the Mess in question as a non-statutory canteen.
H
    SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA                   451
                [H.L. DATTU, J.]
     4. The present special leave petition arises out of the issue    A
pertaining to whether the canteen workers engaged by Mess/
Canteen of the S& T Training Centre could be treated as
Railway Employees. The petitioners-herein are seeking
permanent absorption as railway employees and regularization
of their services, in conformity with the statutory provisions as     B
are applicable to non-statutory canteens of the Railway
administration.

      5. The petitioners-herein are working as cooks and
helpers in the Mess/canteen of the S&T Training Centre. It is         C
an admitted fact that the Mess/canteen has been running from
1992 to cater to the needs of trainee batches undergoing
training in the S&T Training Centre. The Mess/canteen is under
the supervision of a Management Committee chaired by the
Principal of the said Training Centre, where the other railway
officials are members. The Secretary of the Management                D
Committee pays the salaries and allowances to the said
workers, for which expenses are borne by Northern Railways.
Thus, claiming to be railway employees, the petitioners had filed
O.A. No.2341 of 2009, before the Tribunal, seeking
regularization of services for being employed in a non-statutory      E
recognised canteen of the Railways.

      6. The Tribunal vide its order dated 21.09.2010 is of the
view that since the Mess/canteen, run in the S&T Trainir.g
Centre, had not been recognized by the General Manager of             F
the Northern Railways, the said Canteen would be a non-
statutory non-recognised Canteen. In support of the said finding,
the Tribunal further relied upon the decision in MMR Khan &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1990) Suppl. SCC 191, as well
as the Rules of the Railway Establishment Manual. Thereafter,         G
a review was sought by the petitioners against order dated
21.09.2010 in O.A. No. 2341 of2009. The Tribunal, in review,
vide its order dated 16.11.2010, is of the view that since there
were no fresh averments on the grounds urged by the
petitioners, the position of law in this regard is well settled and
                                                                      H
    452       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   that there was no error, either in fact or in law, in the aforesaid
    order.

        7. The question is whether workers engaged in non-
  statutory canteens could be treated as railway employees is
B elaborately discussed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
  the M.M.R. Khan case (supra). The Court in the M.M.R. Khan
  case (supra) classified canteens into three categories, namely,
  (i) Statutory canteens; (ii) Non-statutory recognised canteens;
  and (iii) Non-statutory non-recognised canteens. It is submitted
C by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners
  must be regularized as Railway employees, since they are
  canteen workers falling within the aforementioned category (ii},
  that is, a Non-Statutory Recognised Canteen.

        8. The Court, in order to determine the status of the
D employees, in the MMR Khan case (supra), categorically
  distinguished between Non-Statutory Recognised Canteen and
  Non-Statutory Non-recognised canteens. The three-Judge
  Bench of this Court observed as follows:

          "38. The difference between the non-statutory recognised
E
          and non-statutory non-recognised canteen is that these
          canteens are not started with the approval of the Railway
          Board as required under paragraph 2831 of the Railway
          Establishment Manual. Though, they are started in the
          premises belonging to the Railways they are so started with
F         the permission of the local officers. They are not required
          to be managed either as per the provisions of the Railway
          Establishment Manual or the Administrative Instructions
          (Supra). There is no obligation on the Railway
          Administration to provide them with any facilities including
G         the furniture, utensils, electricity and water. These canteens
          are further not entitled to nor are they given any subsidies
          or loans. They are run by private contractors and there is
          no continuity either of the contractors or the workers
          engaged by them. Very often than not the workers go out
H
    SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA                      453
                [H.L. DATTU, J.]
    with the contractors. There is further no obligation cast            A
    even on the local offices to supervise the working of these
    canteens. No rules whatsoever are applicable to the
    recruitment of the workers and their service conditions. The
    canteens are run more or less on ad-hoc basis, the
    Railway Administration having no control on their working            B
    neither is there a record of these canteens or of the
    contractors who run them who keep on changing, much
    less of the workers engaged in these canteens. In the
    circumstances we are of the view of that the workers
    engaged in these canteens are not entitled to claim the              c
    status of the railway servants."

      9. The Court in the M.M.R. Khan case (supra) sought to
clarify that the workers engaged in a Mess, which may or may
not be statutory, must be recognised as a "canteen" by the
Railway Administration, for being treated as Railway                     D
employees and claim subsequent benefits thereof. It
emphasized upon the approval by the Railway Board as
required under Rule 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual
to be classified as a non-statutory recognized canteen.
                                                                         E
     10. As the decision in the M.M.R. Khan case (supra) was
delivered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, and has been
duly approved by subsequent decisions, this Court would be
bound by the ratio decidendi of the said case. Therefore, in light
of the decision in the M. M.R. Khan case (supra), in our                 F
considered opinion, the petitioners-herein, being held to be
working in a non-statutory non-recognised canteen by the
Tribunal as well as the learned Judges of the High Court of
Delhi, would not be entitled to regularisation of their services.

      11. Further, it would be pertinent to note that the Tribunal       G
is the final fact-finding authority. It is settled law that this Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, cannot normally interfere with the
7indings of fact of a Tribunal. In support of the given principle,
Ne may take support of the case of Metroark Ltd. v. CCE,                 H
    454       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   (2004) 12 SCC 505, wherein this Court observed that:

          "8 .... The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless
          it is shown that there is something perverse in its finding,
          this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for
          this purpose. But as a large number of authorities are cited,
B
          we refer to them: Pragati Computers (P) Ltd. v. Collector
          of Customs, (2000) 10 SCC 150; Reliance Silicon (I) (P)
          Ltd. v. CCE, (1997) 1 SCC 215; Asian Paints India Ltd.
          v. CCE, (1988) 2 SCC 470 and Collector of Customs v.
          Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd., 1988 Supp 796."
c
         12. Further, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case
    of Piara Singh v. Natha Singh, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 289, held
    as follows:

D         "3 .... The short question before the High Court was whether
          the Will executed by Sadhu Singh in 1962 was genuine
          or not. Both the first appellate court and the High Court
          have concurrently held that the Will was genuine. This is
          purely a finding of fact with which we cannot and do not
          interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal
E
          is, therefore, dismissed."

          13. In the case of Traders and Traders v. Ramnarayan
    Bhattad, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 661, while dismissing a petition
    filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, a three-
F   Judge Bench of this Court held as follows:

          "3. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant at
          length. His main effort has been to demolish the finding of
          fact recorded by the Division Bench by taking us through
          these documents. We find no merit in it. A finding based
G
          on appreciation of evidence is a finding of fact which
          cannot be interfered. Even assuming that two views were
          possible on construction of docl!ments that would not justify
          interference in Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is
          not every error or mistake committed by the High Court,
H
   SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA                   455
               [H.L. DATTU, J.]
    which under the constitutional scheme is contemplated as         A
    the final court of appeal, to be corrected by this Court in
    exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
      "

     14. Therefore, in light of the settled principle of law as      B·
enunciated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that this
Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the petitioners-herein are working in a
non-statutory non-recognised canteen. We find no reason to
interfere with the said finding.
                                                                     c
      15. It would be necessary to take note of the fact that, in
the present case, the petitioners have relied upon an unsigned
copy of a letter dated 09.11.1976 to show that a refundable
advance was sanctioned for the Mess Management
Committee and that the said advance was approved by the              D
Railway Board. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the said letter dated 09.11.1976 would reflect
that the canteen was duly sanctioned by the Railway Board and
therefore, the said canteen must be of the nature of a non-
statutory recognised canteen. The said unsigned letter dated         E
09.11.1976 was brought on record for the first time only before
the High Court of Delhi in the review petition. The authenticity
of the said letter has been doubted, by the High Court, and
therefore it is held that the same could not amount to the due
sanction of the canteen granted by the Railway Board. We are         F
in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the learned
Judges of the High Court.

      16. Further, as has been noted hereinabove, the said letter
dated 09.11.1976 was not produced before the final fact finding
authority. The petitioners seek to rely on the letter shows that     G
the same implies or assumes that sanction was granted.
According to Rule 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual,
for the grant of such sanction for recognition of the canteen, the
Railway Board must be approached, prior to starting the said
canteen. Further, the sanction must indicate the financial           H
    456      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A implications involved, which would thereafter have to be duly
  vetted by the Financial Advisor and General Accounts Officer
  of the Railway Board to fulfil conditions of a Non-statutory
  recognised canteen. The said sanction must provide details
  regarding the number of staff to be employed in the canteen
B as well as the recurring and non-recurring expenditure to be
  regulated by Railways.

        17. On a perusal of the said letter dated 09.11.1976, we
  find that it does not reflect the grant of any such sanction. We
C cannot agree with the said assumption of the petitioners in the
  absence of a finding on that by the final fact finding authority.
  The petitioners have failed to place on record any documents
  before the Tribunal to support the fact that sanction was granted
  by the Railway Board, recognising the Mess being run at the
  S&T Training Centre, as a non-statutory recognised canteen.
D
       18. Therefore, in the instant case, since there is no material
  placed on record, regarding the grant of sanction by Railway
  before any forum to highlight that the said Mess was of the
  nature of non-statutory recognised canteen, such a sanction
E cannot be assumed.

       19. Further, Shri Jagdev Singh Manhas, learned counsel
  for the petitioners, would further make a reference to the
  decisions of this Court in S.P. Chenga/varaya Naidu v.
  Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Hamza Haji v. State of
F Kera/a, (2006) 7 sec 416. The said cases would be referred
  for the purposes of elaborating upon the question of fraud
  played by one party on another party to the /is and on the Court
  as well. However, in our considered view, the said cases would
  be of no assistance to the petitioners as the question of whether
G there was any fraud is not before this Court in the present
  special leave petition(s).

       20. In light of the discussion above, we find no infirmity with
  the i!"npugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High
H Court, dated 09.05.2014 and 30.03.2012, whereby the learned
    SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA                 457
                [H.L. DATTU, J.]
Judges upheld the view of the Tribunal stating that the            A
petitioners-herein were working in a Non-statutory non-
recognised canteen of the Railway Establishment and therefore
would not be entitled to claim regularisation of their services.

      21. In view of the above, we dismiss the special leave
                                                                   B
petition(s) and confirm the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
passed by the High Court.

     Ordered Accordingly.

Devika Gujral                                    SLP dismissed.    C