Judgment : Ganguly, J.: The instant appeal is directed against an order passed on June 3, 1993 by a learned single Judge in the connected writ petition. This court after hearing the application for stay in connection with the appeal, by consent of parties, decide to hear out the main writ petition in matter No.......... of 1993 as otherwise there will be a duplication of hearing of the said matter once of the interlocutory stage and once of the final hearing. Furthermore, this appeal is directed against an order not granting interim order and the appellants/petitioners pray for an interim order pending the disposal of the writ petition. That is why it was decided by consent of parties, to hearout the main writ petition once for all. 2. The subject-matter of the writ petition, bereft of verbiage can be put in a short compass namely, as to whether the employees of the canteens of some of the branches or State Bank of India can claim to be observed as employees of the State Bank of India 3. Before going into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties we cannot resist the temptation to quote an observation made by Bose, J. (Vivian) in the case of (1) Seksaria Colton Mills Ltd. v. The State of Bombay reported in AIR 1953 SC 278 . In paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment His Lordship observed as follows :- "Here is an order which is to affect the business of hundreds of persons, many of whom are small petty merchants and traders, the sort of men who would not have lawyers constantly at their elbow; and even if they did, the more learned their advisers were in the law the more puzzled they would be as to what advice to give, for it is not till one is learned in the law that subtleties of thought and bewilderment arise at the meaning of plain English words which any ordinary man of average intelligence, not versed in the law, would have no difficulty in understanding." 4. We are also tempted to quote another passage of Harman, L. J. in the case of (1) Duple Motor Bodies v. I.R.C. reported in (1960) WLR 510 at 516 to the effect that:- An English law suit is not a moot or a debate, but an attempt to arrive at a result on the facts before the court : broad academic arguments are quite unsuited to the process of English law." 5. What is true of an English law suit is equally true in respect of a writ proceeding because the Indian Legal System or jurisprudence as it is sometimes called takes a pride in shinning in the pallor of reflected glory of the English law although in the third world countries the courts have made tremendors progress in the field of service jurisprudence having been emancipated from rigours of the conservative law of England. 6. The petitioner No.1 is a registered trade union and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the office bearers of the petitioner No. 1. The members of the petitioner No. 1 are the canteen employees employed in various canteens run by the State Bank of India through the Circle Welfare Committees at its various branches in Bengal Circle. The petitioner No.2 is working for gain in State Bank of India. 7. The petitioners state that the admitted fact is that the State Bank of India provides canteen service and/or facilities to its regular employees by running various canteens at its various branches. 8. For the purpose of providing such canteen facilities along with various other welfare facilities to its employees, the respondent bank introduced a scheme in the year 1963. Such scheme is known as 'Hand Book on Staff Welfare Activities'. 9. From the said scheme, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition marked with the letter 'A', it appears that there is a staff welfare fund sanctioned by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank and such funds, to the extent utilised, are drawn from the charges account of the bank at the end of the year and the funds are the property of the bank earmarked for providing amenities to the staff and for carrying out welfare activities for the employees of the bank as a whole. One of the welfare activities is the promotion of canteen facilities to the staff of the bank. 10. One of the welfare activities is the promotion of canteen facilities to the staff of the bank. 10. The said handbook provides for formation of Local Implementation Committees formed at each branch and at the respective regional offices, local head office and Central Office Establishment and other offices to conduct welfare activities out of the funds allocated to them by the Circle Welfare Committees. Such Local Implementation Commitees are in charge of the management of the welfare activities. Such Local Implementation Committees render appropriate accounts to the Circle Welfare Committees every six months or as may otherwise be directed. 11. The composition or the Local Implementation Committee is as noted below :- i) The Branch Manager/Chief Manager/Chief Regional Manager (or any other officer nominated by the President of the Circle Welfare Committee) will be the Ex-officio President of the Local Implementation Committee (Hereinafter referred to as L. I. C. for the sake of brevity). ii) One member of the supervision staff where the number of supervising staff at an establishment is five or more, two where the number is 10 or more and three where the number of supervision staff is 20 or more. At the focal head office the number of supervision staff on the committee will be four. These members should be nominated in consultation with the local union of the recognised Circle Supervising Staff Association. if any, functioning at that establishment. iii) Four members of the Award staff to be nominated by the President of Local Implementation Committee in consultation with the local unit of the recognised employees union. If however, there is no such local unit functioning, a meeting of the staff should be held to make the nomination. One of the task of such Local Implementation Committee is to promote Canteen facilities and to give canteen subsidies and from the staff welfare fund the wages of canteen employees on a uniform scale of monthly basis are paid out of the bank's charges account. 12. On the basis of the said scheme the Local Implementation Committees were formed in various circles and in respect of various branches which, in turn, employed various persons as canteen employees for the scheme of the sad welfare activities as envisaged by the said regulations. 13. 12. On the basis of the said scheme the Local Implementation Committees were formed in various circles and in respect of various branches which, in turn, employed various persons as canteen employees for the scheme of the sad welfare activities as envisaged by the said regulations. 13. The canteen employees who were ostensively employed by the said Implementation Committee were in effect, meant to prepare and serve tea, meals and provide service for the business of the bank and/or its employees. The salary of the canteen employees are paid by the Implementation Committee from the funds created by the bank for the same and also directly from its charges account. The employment of the canteen employees depends upon the existence of the bank vis-a-vis its employees. 14. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition have admitted the basic facts but have diferred on drawing the inferential fact, from such basic facts. The bank asserts that the bank does not pay wages to the canteen employees out of the bank's charges accounts as wrongly claimed by the petitioners but such wages are paid by the Local Implementation Committees. It is further admitted by the respondent bank in paragraph 7 of its affidavit-in-opposition that the bank provides subsidies to the Local Implementation Committee to meet various expenses for their welfare activities, including funds to the said committee to pay wages or part thereof to the canteen boys. The respondents also seek to assert in the said paragraph that the Local Implementation Committee is formed at the branches and it functions independently with the objective and goal set in staff welfare scheme of the bank and that it is not managed, run or supervised by the bank. The respondent bank further asserts that there is no statutory obligation to run canteens and that such canteens are run by Local Implementation Committee with fund provided as subsidy under the welfare scheme. 15. It is an admitted position that in respect of canteens at branches where the minimum number of employee is above a certain number, the bank has treated the employees of the canteen as the employees of the bank whereas in respect of branches having a lesser number of employees, the canteen employees are not treated as bank employees but as employees of the Local Implementation Committee. 16. 16. Before entering into certain other factual controversy in the matter let us look into the things as they are. The bank has a staff welfare handbook in which the constitution of the Local Implementation Committee is provided. The members of the Local Implementation Committee are all employees of the bank. The Local Implementation Committee has no fund of its own save that is doled out by the bank from its charges account. Out of the funds given by the bank to such Local Implementation Committee, such committee pays the wages of the canteen employee where such canteen employees are not treated as bank employees by the bank. In fact, the bank seeks to create layers of insulation between itself and the employees of the canteen at the less fortunate branches of the bank. In this connection a reference straightway may be made to the case of (3) Hussain Bhai v. Alath Factory Tezhilali Union & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1410 wherein in paragraph 3 it has been stated as follows :- "3. Who is an employee, in Labour Law ? That is the short, diehard question raised here but covered by this Courts earlier decisions. Like the High Court, we give short shrift to the contention that the petitioner has entered into agreements with intermediate contractors who had hired the respondent Union's workmen and so no, direct employer-employee vinculum juris existed between the petitioner and the workmen. 4. This argument is impeccable in laiseez fair economics 'red in tooth and claw' and under the Contract Act rooted in English Common Law. But the human gap of a century yawns between this strict doctrine and industrial jurisprudence. The source and strength of the industrial branch of Third World Jurisprudence is social justice proclaimed in the preamble to the Constitution. This Court in (4) Ganesh Beedi's case (1974)1 Lab LJ 367: AIR 1974 SC 1832 , has raised on British and American rulings to hold that mere contracts are not decisive and the complex of considerations relevant to the relationship is different Indian Justice, beyond Atlantic liberalism, has a rule of law which runs to the aid of the rule of life. And life, in conditions of poverty aplenty, is livelihood and livelihood is work with wages. And life, in conditions of poverty aplenty, is livelihood and livelihood is work with wages. Raw societal realities, not fine spun legal niceties, not competitive market economics but complex protective principles shape the law when the weaker, working class sector needs succour for livelihood through labour. The conceptual confusion between the classical law of contrasts and the special branch of law sensitive to exploitative situations accounts for the submission that the High Court is in error in its holding against the petitioner. 5. The true test may, with brevity be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that ether is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like, may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer based on Arts. 38, 39, 42, 43 and 43A of the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances. 6. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off." 17. Following the aforesaid judgment the Calcutta High Court in its writ jurisdiction also delivered a judgment in the case of (5) F.C.I. Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off." 17. Following the aforesaid judgment the Calcutta High Court in its writ jurisdiction also delivered a judgment in the case of (5) F.C.I. Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors. reported in 1993(1) CHN 48 and observed in paragraph 22 of the said judgment that the ratio of the said judgment marches down to posterity with divine honours and once for all it does away with the final niceties of law where human starvation looms large because of the existence of legal innovation improvised by intellectual trend in the earth to deprive the unread and the unfed. 18. In the case under consideration it is claimed that the State Bank of India has innovated layers of insulation between itself and the ultimate canteen employees by providing for the Local Implementation Committees and by giving subsidies to such committees. But if we piece the veil we find that such canteen employees are in fact paid out of the funds made available to such Local Implementation Committee by the bank. If the bank chokes off, the employees are rendered jobless and the Local Implementation Committee has no money to give succour to such employees. 19. It is immaterial whether there is any statutory obligation cast on the State Bank of India to provide for such canteen at all and if so whether the bank authorities can discriminate between the employees of a canteen of a branch where the bank employees are more than a given number and where the employees of the branch are below the stated level. The number of the employees in a branch is not decisive of the matter, what is decisive is the status of the canteen employees. The bank is not obliged to provide for a canteen in ail the branches of the bank but the question is not that, the question is where the bank does allow a canteen to be run and given subsidy to the Local Implementation Committee to pay for the wages of such canteen employees the bank becomes the real employer or such canteen employees and such canteen employees must be treated at par with the other members of the Class IV staff of the bank. 20. 20. The argument of the bank that the bank has agreed to absorb the employees of the canteens of the branches employing a certain number of employees is a result of certain bi-partite settlement which settlements are binding on the petitioners is not tenable in law at all. In fact, even if the settlement is binging on the petitioners still then the petitioners have an independent right of being similarly treated as employees of the canteens of other branches of the bank in view of Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right of the petitioners is not dependent on any settlement judgment or award of any authority. So it is immaterial as to whether blessings have been conferred on certain canteen employees by virtue of any bi-partite settlement or by virtue of an award namely the Moidu award or even a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and those becomes wholly irrelevant. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not decided any issue at all, inter alia, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court merely recorded a compromise arrived at between the parties before it representing the employer and the employees respectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not decide any issue and as such the judgment on compromise will not have any binding fane under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 21. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India advanced a very spun argument on the technical niceties of the binding effect of settlements, awards and judgments and we are bound to admit, very rightly, but we are not puzzled by the subtlities of thought and we are not perplexed by legal ingenuities the learned Counsel of the bank astutely put before us. The argument is appreciated but is not acceptable to us. It is our duty not to be an arbiter in any legal debate but it is our duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of a given set of circumstances. We repeat that the right of the petitioners emanate from Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and not from any settlement, judgment or award. We repeat that the right of the petitioners emanate from Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and not from any settlement, judgment or award. It is seen that the employees of certain canteens are treated unequally from the employees of certain other canteen both supplying snacks, meals and beverages to the employees of the bank and as such arbitrariness in the matter of treatment of persons similarly circumstanced is writ large on the face of it and it is now an established principle of law that arbitrariness is anatho-ma to Article 14 and whenever arbitrariness appears Article 14 springs up and strikes down such arbitrariness. The employees of all such canteens are similarly circumstanced and they cannot be treated unequally and the equality of treatment does not depend on the numerical strength of the bank employees in a particular branch. The right conferred on a section of such canteen employees by virtue of a settlement correspondingly confers an independent right on the other section of the canteen employees to be treated equally and the latter group gains such right from Article 14 of the Constitution. 22. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore this court holds that the State Bank of India is bound to treat the employees of the canteens of all the branches, where such canteens exist, equally and to treat them as employees of the bank and not to peer at such employees through the opaque curtain of the Local Implementation Committees. 23. Both the writ petition and the appeal succeed and are allowed. 24. There will be no order as to costs. 25. After the judgment was delivered, prayer for stay of operation of the order was made but the same is refused. Let xerox copies of the judgment be made available to the parties upon compliance of all required formalities. Banerjee, J.: I agree.