JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.9.96 passed by D.P. Kundu, J., in Matter No. 1787 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. 2. The appellant is a registered Union. Originally, 51 persons being members of the appellant Union filed writ applications before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which were marked as W.P. (C) No. 244 of 1986 and W.P. (C) No. 297 of 1986. The Supreme Court by an order dated 18.7.95 directed: – "These two petitions W.P. (C) No. 244 of 1986 and W.P. (C) No. 297 of 1986 were once listed for hearing tagged with a batch of cases. During the course of hearing of those cases, these were ordered to be delinked for they pertain to public sector undertakings and other matters related to other undertakings. We find instantly that even Rule has not been issued in these matters what to talk of Rule nisi. They are at a preliminary stage and have not been entertained by this Court in the strict sense. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, we feel that in writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the cause of the petitioners cannot fruitfully be examined. It would, therefore, be apt that these petitions are heard by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, direct that these petitions be sent to the High Court of Calcutta, for being disposed of in accordance with law most expeditiously since these matters were held-over in this Court for quite sometime. No costs." 3. In this situation the matter came up for consideration before this Court. 4. The appellant contended that staff canteen of the Marketing Division situated at the Calcutta Office of the respondent herein is being run by a Co-operative Society. All the members of the said Co-operative Society are employees of the 1st respondent, although the canteen is a non-statutory one. According to the appellant, the nature of the work and duties performed by the employees of the staff canteen is similar to those of the statutory canteens of the 1st respondent herein. 5. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, stated that the members of the appellant-Union are not their employees. According to the appellant, the nature of the work and duties performed by the employees of the staff canteen is similar to those of the statutory canteens of the 1st respondent herein. 5. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, stated that the members of the appellant-Union are not their employees. It was categorically stated that the canteen is run by a Co-operative Society founded by some employees working at the office of Central Marketing Organization, Fairlie Place, Calcutta. The said Co-operative Society admittedly is a registered one. It has been denied that the respondent had ever started any canteen in its Central Marketing Organization Office situated at Fairlie Place, Calcutta but the same had been run by the aforementioned Co-operative Society. 6. Before the learned trial Judge, the appellant referred to an extract from an agreement dated 29.7.83 arrived at between the management of CMO/SAIL and All India Co-ordination Committee of SAIL Employees' Union, from a perusal whereof it appears that a demand was made that the canteen should be run departmentally whereas the management proposed that canteens would continue to be run by the Co-operative Society wherever existing and at other places wherever possible, Co-operative system in running the canteens could be followed. Clause 4.12.1 of the said agreement reads thus:– "The Union demanded that canteens should be run departmentally. Management expressed their inability to do so. Management proposed that canteens will continue to be run by Co-operative systems wherever existing and at other places, wherever, possible, Co-operative system for running the canteens would be followed." 7. The learned trial Judge keeping in view the aforementioned disputed questions and particularly in view of the fact that the Co-operative Society was not impleaded as a party to the writ application held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not the proper forum for deciding such complicated disputed questions of fact. 8. Mr. Sengupta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Parimal Chandra Raha & other vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & other, AIR 1995 SC 1666 : 1995 Supp (2) SCC 64, the learned trial Judge committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel submitted that the Apex Court has also directed regularization of such employees in M.M.R. Khan vs. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 191. 9. The learned Counsel submitted that the Apex Court has also directed regularization of such employees in M.M.R. Khan vs. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 191. 9. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the judgment under appeal. Admittedly, the canteen in question is not a statutory canteen. It is also admitted that the said canteen is run by a Co-operative Society. The Co-operative Society is a juristic person. Only because its members happen to be the employees of the 1st respondent, the same by itself does not mean that the said society is merely a smoke screen. 10. The contention of the appellant that the workmen employed in the canteen are in fact workmen of the 1st respondent and the Co-operative Society has been set up by way of a camouflage, which having been denied and disputed by the respondent herein give rise to a disputed question of fact and, thus, the same can only be adjudicated upon in an Industrial Court. The writ Court is not the proper forum as has rightly been held by the learned trial Judge where such a question can be gone into. Moreover, only because some facilities e.g. provision for pipe-line for the supply of gas, water and electricity had been provided by the respondent, the same by itself does not prove that there exists a relationship of employer and employee between the 1st respondent and the workmen or in fact the 1st respondent exercises any control over the canteen. The 1st respondent-company is a State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and, thus, if it has taken measures granting certain benefits for the convenience of its employees including the grant of benefit of providing a space for running a canteen, the same does not mean that the canteen is under the direct control of the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent had any statutory or other obligation to run the said canteen. The provisions of the Factories Act admittedly have no application in the instant case. 11. The decision of the Supreme Court in M.M.R. Khan vs. Union of India (supra) and Parimal Chandra Raha & other vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & other (supra) had been rendered in different fact situation. The provisions of the Factories Act admittedly have no application in the instant case. 11. The decision of the Supreme Court in M.M.R. Khan vs. Union of India (supra) and Parimal Chandra Raha & other vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & other (supra) had been rendered in different fact situation. It may be noticed that the Apex Court itself in Employers in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India vs. Workmen, 1996 (3) SCC 267 , distinguished M.M.R. Khan vs. Union of India (supra) and Parimal Chandra Raha & other vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & other (supra), on the ground that the same had been decided on the facts of those cases. In Khan (supra), the Apex Court granted reliefs keeping in view the provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual, the notifications and circulars issued by the Railway Board from time to time and other documents. In that case it was held that the non-statutory recognized canteens were also to be at a par with the statutory canteens in view of the mandate contained in paras 2830 to 2834 of the Railway Establishment Manual. No such provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court in the instant case. 12. The Apex Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India vs. Workmen reported in 1996 (3) SCC 267 , held: – "Moreover, there is no right in the Bank to supervise and control the work done by the persons employed in the Committee nor has the Bank any right to direct the manner in which the work shall be done by various persons. The Bank has absolutely no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct any canteen employee to do a particular work. Even according to the Tribunal, the Bank exercises only a remote control. We are of the view that in the absence of any obligation, statutory or otherwise, regarding the running of a canteen by the Bank and the details relating thereto similar to Factories Act or the Railway Establishment Manual, and in the absence of any effective or direct control in the Bank to supervise and control the work done by various persons, the workers in the canteen run by the Implementation Committee (Canteen Committee) cannot come within the ratio laid down by this Court in M.M.R. Khan vs. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 191." 13. It was further observed: – "On the facts of this case, in the absence of any statutory or other legal obligation and in the absence of any right in the Bank to supervise and control the work or the details thereof in any manner regarding the canteen workers employed in the three types of canteens, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant existed between the Bank and the various persons employed in three types of canteens. 166 persons mentioned in the list attached to the reference are not workmen of the Reserve Bank of India and that they are not comparable employees employed in the Officers' Lounge. Therefore, the demand for regularization is unsustainable and they are not entitled to any relief. We hold that the award passed by the Tribunal is factually and legally unsustainable." 14. In the aforementioned situation Parimal Chandra Raha & other vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & other (supra) was also not held to be attracted in that case. Similar is the situation prevailing in the instant case. 15. The same view has been taken by a division bench of this Court in Sri Raj Kumar Sardar vs. Union of India & other, 1999(1) Cal LJ 125. 16. The Co-operative Society also was not impleaded as a party in the writ application. Before us, an application for its addition as a party has been filed after the arguments were heard and judgment referred and that too only in the Court and not in the filing section in terms of the rules framed by this Court. 17. The said application, therefore, cannot be entertained and, thus, is rejected. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.