ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition relates to the claim for absorption/regularization of the employees of Consumers Co-operative society. Facts in brief are inter alia as follows: ( 2 ) SOME of the employees working in the Indian Iron and Steel Co. (hereinafter termed as said Company) in its Burnpur and Kulti units formed a Co-operative Society under name and style "iisco Employees primary Co-operative Stores Ltd. Burnpur". The said Co-operative Society got registered under the provisions, of West Bengal Co-operative Societies act, 1973. The Bye Laws of the Primary Co-operative Stores, Burnpur provided that membership is open to the individual employees of Indian iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and of die State Government. ( 3 ) FOR the purpose of carrying on its different activities, the said co-operative stores employed some workmen in its different units and establishments both at Burnpur and Kulti with their service conditions governed by the rules framed under the West Bengal Co-operative societies Act. 1973. These employees employed by the Co-operative stores subsequently claimed regularization and/or absorption under Indian Iron and Steel Co. . The said Company represented their cases before the assistant Labour Commissioner contending inter alia that the employees/ workmen working in the Co-operative stores were never employed and/ or deployed and/or appointed and are engaged by the petitioner Company. ( 4 ) THE State Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal and 9th industrial Tribunal, Durgapur was to decide as to whether the workmen employed in units of IISCO Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores both at Burnpur and Kulti are workmen of IISCO or not. ( 5 ) THE petitioner Company filed their written statement before the tribunal The respondent No. 4 i. e. Assansol Burnpur Metal and engineering Workers' Union, Puranahat Burnpur (hereinafter termed its sand Union) submitted their reply. 5. An application was filed on behalf of the Union before the Tribunal contending inter alia that the issue regarding the employer-employee relationship had already been decided in Case No. X-13/80 in a similar proceeding and the same point cannot be re-agitated in this proceeding. ( 6 ) THE petitioner filed an objection before the Tribunal and contended that since the Co-operative is a body corporate and is a separate entity and the employees working in the Co-operative are not engaged and/. ( 6 ) THE petitioner filed an objection before the Tribunal and contended that since the Co-operative is a body corporate and is a separate entity and the employees working in the Co-operative are not engaged and/. or appointed and/or deployed by the petitioner Company, there is no employer-employee relationship and Tribunal should reject the application by them or by the Union. ( 7 ) THE petitioner Company filed a list of documents to be relied upon during the course of proceeding before the Tribunal. The employee of the petitioner Company and the alleged workmen deposed before the tribunal during hearing. The Tribunal passed an award with direction upon the petitioner Company to treat the workmen employed in various units of IISCO Employees Co-operative Stores Ltd. both at Burnpur and kulti as the workmen of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and to treat them at par with the workmen of the Company for the purpose of all service benefits from the date when the reference before the Tribunal was made. ( 8 ) CHALLENGING the said award of the 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur, the petitioner Company has filed this writ petition. ( 9 ) MR. Gupta appearing for the petitioner Company submitted that facts the learned Tribunal is basically wrong in its approach and finding. The learned Tribunal took some as granted. The Company deputed a few officers or rather allowed them to be the members of the Board of the co-operative Society only to oversee that the employees' interests is not jeopardized. In fact, employees have formed the Co-operative Society and now this Society that means employees of the Company had employed some persons to run the Co-operative Society that does not mean that the employees can claim regularization or claim themselves direct workmen of the Company. Mr. Gupta in this regard relied on a judgment reported in 1996 Vol. (3) SCC 267 (Employees in Relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India vs. Workmen ). Mr. Gupta specifically referred to the observations made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and 25 of this decision. Mr. Gupta submitted that in this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed that there must be statutory obligation that is, the Company must have statutory obligations to run the Co-operative Society. Mr. Gupta specifically referred to the observations made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and 25 of this decision. Mr. Gupta submitted that in this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed that there must be statutory obligation that is, the Company must have statutory obligations to run the Co-operative Society. In that case the Reserve Bank of India formed an Implementation Committee (Canteen Committee) to run the Canteen. Bank had no right to supervise or control the work of Canteen workers or to take disciplinary action against them. In that event the Hon'ble apex Court observed that question of regularization of the Canteen employees does not arise here and here the Canteen Committee cannot come within the ratio of M M. R. Khan case. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that in the absence of any statutory or rather 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 these types of Canteen, it cannot be said that the relationship of master-servant existed between the Bank and the various persons employed in these types of Canteens. ( 10 ) MR. Gupta then referred to and relied upon another decision of the hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2000 Vol. (5) SCC 531 /state Bank of india and Ors. us. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal circle) and Ors. /. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this judgment observed that non-statutory Canteens provide employees and the Bank in a settlement with the Employees' Union and they undertook to promote Canteen facilities at the branches. It ultimately held, that employees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation committee as per the welfare scheme framed by State Bank of India would not become employees of the Bank as the Batik is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arisen under the Sastry award to run such Canteens. Mr. Gupta laid stress on the observations made m paragraph 19 of this judgment where two questions were put to by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Mr. Gupta laid stress on the observations made m paragraph 19 of this judgment where two questions were put to by the Hon'ble Apex Court. ( 11 ) THE said paragraph 19 is quoted hereinbelow: "19 At the time of hearing of these appeals; the learned counsel for the parties submitted that for deciding these matters the following two questions would be required to be dealt with by this Court: (i) Although, it is not a statutory obligation to provide a canteen, whether it is otherwise an obligation of the Bank to provide a canteen? or whether it has an obligation to provide facilities to run the canteen? it is admitted position that in law if there is an obligation to provide a canteen, the employees working in the canteen would be employees of the bank, and if not, the employees working in the canteen may not become part of the establishment. (ii) Secondly, whether the petition for same cause of action was maintainable after the order dated 14-10-1985 passed by this Court in civil Appeal No. 840 of 1977, wherein the award passed by Justice Moidu was challenged and this Court substituted the said award by passing the order "the settlement is recorded and the appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise" on the basis of application filed by the parties? it is contended that in view of the aforesaid order it is not open to the employees working in the canteen to reagitate the question that they would become employees of the Bank. " ( 12 ) MR. Gupta then referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in 2005 Vol. (5) SCC 51 (Haldia Refinery Canteen employees Union and Ors. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. ). Mr. Gupta submitted that in this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Canteen employees cannot be treated as the employees of Haldia refinery. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that the terms of settlement is not binding upon the management inasmuch as the management was not a party and this was between the workers and the contractor and the Canteen was run by the contractors. The Hon'ble Apex court observed that this fact goes to establish that the employees of the canteen wanted to establish themselves as employees of the Bank. ( 13 ) IN so many words or in different manner Mr. The Hon'ble Apex court observed that this fact goes to establish that the employees of the canteen wanted to establish themselves as employees of the Bank. ( 13 ) IN so many words or in different manner Mr. Gupta tried to argue that unless there is a statutory liability the Company cannot have any obligation. In this case Mr. Gupta argued that two settlements were earlier executed and that these two agreements were tripartite but the Company was not a parry therein. On these two settlements workers, Co-operative society and the Assistant Labour Commissioner i. e. the State were parties. ( 14 ) MR. Gupta argued that in so many exbts. the Tribunal wanted to show or establish that here signatory is the Company officer; but the company officer here, acted as a deputed person of a Company to the board of Co-operative Society. The Co-operative Society under the Bengal co-operative Societies Act has formed a Board and there the Company deputed their high officials and that does not mean that the said official acted as Company personnel. ( 15 ) MR. Gupta referring to those documents wanted to establish that the Company officials acted always as the officials deputed in the Board of Co-operative Society and in any event the employees of a Co-operative society, who has been engaged by the Co-operative Society cannot be said to be the employees of the Company and the Tribunal in its approach was basically wrong and its finding is also wrong and perverse. ( 16 ) MR. Gupta concludingly submitted that the case or Steel Authority of India is not relevant in this context inasmuch as the said case relates to abolition of contract labour and in this case Contractor is not running the Co-operative stores; the Co-operative is being run by the employees forming a Board. Mr. Gupta submitted that in that view of the matter the Tribunal's award should be set aside. ( 17 ) MR. Moloy Kr. Basu, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that finding of fact based on evidence cannot be set aside by the Writ Court. ( 18 ) MR. Basu submitted that from various documents it would appear that the Company interfered in very many affairs of the Co-operative Society. Mr. Basu indicated that from the documents one after another it appears that the employees approached the Company officials directly. ( 18 ) MR. Basu submitted that from various documents it would appear that the Company interfered in very many affairs of the Co-operative Society. Mr. Basu indicated that from the documents one after another it appears that the employees approached the Company officials directly. Once leave application was filed before the Company official and the Company official granted the said leave which goes to show that the Company officials had a role to play in the Co-operative Society on behalf of the Company. ( 19 ) MR. Basu, with reference to Reserve Bank of India case (supra)submitted that no question of statutory obligation or any kind of obligation does arise where the management and control of the Co-operative Society are in the hands of the Company. ( 20 ) MR. Basu very much relied on Exbt. 1 which is the copy of the award in Industrial Dispute Case No. H-13/80. ( 21 ) MR. Basu submitted that the workmen of the ration shop were ultimately directed to be regularised as Company officials by the Hon'ble apex Court and in that view of the matter this Consumers' Co-operative employees should also be directed to be regularised. ( 22 ) MR. Basu referred to various Exbts. to show and to establish that the employees of the Co-operative for their finance, leave and other things always approached the Company officials. One such example can be made. Mr. Basu referred to Exbt. 29. It is a selection/or interview for the post of Water Boy in General Office Canteen. The selection board comprised deputy Manager (Personnel), Co-operative and Rationing. ( 23 ) HE referred to Exbt. 30 which are the series of Attendance Registers of the Co-operative employees and the Attendance Registers bear the signature of Deputy Manger (Finance), Co-operative, Canteen and rationing IISCO Ltd. , Burnpur. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel referred to Ext. 23/14 which is a letter dated 04-05-1989 to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. , Calcutta by Sri K. K. Tiwari, joint Secretary (Admn.) and Liaison Officer, IISCO Ltd. , Kulti Works, In this letter it has been stated that IISCO Employees' Primary Co-operative stores Ltd. , Kulti run under the direct control and supervision of Indian iron and Steel Co. Ltd. , Kulti. ( 25 ) THEN the learned counsel referred to Exbt. 33/23 which is a letter and Mr. Ltd. , Kulti. ( 25 ) THEN the learned counsel referred to Exbt. 33/23 which is a letter and Mr. Basu submitted that in this letter it has been admitted that iisco Employees' Co-operative Stores Ltd. , Kulti is a IISCO concern and is managed directly under the supervision of the Company. ( 26 ) MR. Basu has all along laid stress that where management, supervision and control is in the hands of the Company nothing else is required to prove that Co-operative employees are the direct employees of the Company and their services should be regularised and they should be absorbed. ( 27 ) MR. Basu read various passages from the Reserve Bank of India case (supra) and submitted that here the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that statutory obligation is necessary but where the management and finance are directly in the hands of the Company, no other thing is required. ( 28 ) MR. Basu further submitted that when the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the ration shop run by the employees of the Company has been declared to be an unit of the Company and then in that event this co-operative should also be declared a department of the Company. ( 29 ) MR. Basu also said that inter-departmental transfer from Cooperative to other departments have been made which goes to show that co-operative employees are at par. ( 30 ) LASTLY, Mr. Basil submitted once again that entire fact has been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has passed award based on facts. The award should not be set aside and the employees should be regularized immediately. . ( 31 ) AT the outset, before coining to decision J must point out that this is a case of judicial review and the Writ Court is not acting as appellate authority of the Tribunal. Therefore, Writ Court cannot reappreciate the evidence accepted by the Tribunal based on facts. The written documents cannot show any chance of denial. Neither Mr. Gupta denied the written documents but only interpretation has been made. Now, written documents were there before the Tribunal and the Tribunal came to a finding and/or conclusion on the basis of these written documents. ( 32 ) OF course, the Reserve Bank of India case has indicated that there must be statutory obligation but obligation if it is non-statutory what will be the fate ? Now, written documents were there before the Tribunal and the Tribunal came to a finding and/or conclusion on the basis of these written documents. ( 32 ) OF course, the Reserve Bank of India case has indicated that there must be statutory obligation but obligation if it is non-statutory what will be the fate ? The Company decided to allow the employees to form a Cooperative and Co-operative Consumers stores that means the employees can easily avail consumer goods from this Co-operative. This may not be statutory obligation but it can be said to be beneficial obligation. The ration shop was also not a statutory obligation but the Co-operative was persuaded to accept the supervision or control of the ration shop and ultimately, the ration shop employees found to be direct employees by the Hon'ble Apex court, Ration shop was not the statutory obligation of the Company and Cooperative for consumer goods is also not a statutory obligation. ( 33 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is this that the letters for correspondence whatever it may be, has been made by the officials deputed by the Company to the Board of Co-operative Society only to oversee the matter. With respect I cant agree with this submission inasmuch as various Company officials including the General Manager, the higher official and next to Managing Director has made correspondence and more or less admitted that the Co-operative is IISCO concern, Leave application, if submitted before the Chairman, Co-operative or Managing director, Co-operative then it is alright, but the leave application has been submitted and are allowed by Company officials. It has been admitted also that the Co-operative Society received financial subsidy from the Company. When correspondence is made between the Co-operative and the officials then also it is alright but when high official of the Company writes to other company like Hindustan Lever and others and admits in that letter that the Company is controlling directly or supervising the Co-operative store, may be different context then ft cannot be said that the Co-operative is not under the direct control of the Company. ( 34 ) THE Tribunal referred to Steel Authority of India Ltd. case because of the reason that there, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if in a sham contract the Company wants to engage some person then those employees can be said to be the direct employees of the Company and naturally, the tribunal referred to lifting of veil" as observed in the said judgment. ( 35 ) IT is a fact that originally the employees were appointed by the co-operative Society but the Company by virtue of their action directly or indirectly allowed the employees, if not all to perform the duties of the Company by deputing them to Company's departments or by allowing them to get involved in Company activities, After establishment of the co-operative Society tire Company by granting financial subsidy or by deputing different officers in the Board of the Co-operative Society and by their other activities allowed tile employees to come in the mainstream. of the Company. The Company by their action took it as their official liability and when the Company has accepted this official liability, this can be termed as 'non-statutory beneficial obligation'. ( 36 ) SOMEWHERE statute provides some duties and responsibilities and some obligations but somewhere the obligation becomes untold. Sometimes. a Company by its activities accepted some employees as their employees that is the Company gets the works done by the said employees directly, here though the Co-operative employees are not the employees of the company but by virtue of their activities got themselves involved in the mainstream of the Company and the Company accepted the position. ( 37 ) THE ration shop which was not a statutory obligation has become a direct unit of the Company. In various places a canteen has been declared to be not the part of the' Company but there, I am definite that the canteen is run under different management and status and the canteen employees, never got themselves involved in the Company activities and as such in those cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has declared the canteen employees not to be treated as Company employees. In the reserve Bank of India case a committee was specially formed under name and style Implementation Committee' and that committee was to supervise and in that case the employees of the canteen did not get involved in direct activities of the Bank. In the reserve Bank of India case a committee was specially formed under name and style Implementation Committee' and that committee was to supervise and in that case the employees of the canteen did not get involved in direct activities of the Bank. In the instant case if the company would have formed a committee or unit to oversee the co-operative activities and would not have deputed any Co-operative employees to any place of the Company then there would have been question. The high officials of the Company, have become members of the Board but the Company did not say before the Tribunal as to exactly who are the three or four deputed persons as Board members as per the bye-Laws of the Co-operative. ( 38 ) THOUGH regularization of service of the employees irregularly appointed cannot 'be done, but here question of irregular appointment is not there. The employees have been recruited by the Co-operative Society in lawful manner following the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules but ultimately, these employees were allowed to get involved in the Company activities unknowingly. ( 39 ) THE appointment of the employees are regular under the co-operative Societies Act but their attendance has been overseen or rather accepted by Company official. It is not said why this Company official under which capacity has signed the attendance registers-is he a Board member ? It has not been shown on behalf of the Company from the Bye-Laws that these are the members and this is the number of members deputed in the Board of the Co-operative Society from the company. That clearly, shows that provisions of Co-operative Societies act has not been made applicable in. administrative cases that is where administrative hierarchy or administrative job is to be done, Co-operative societies Act and Rules have not been followed rather it appears that the Company officials are doing the administrative job in respect of the company employees. ( 40 ) WHEN a leave application is being made that must be made to the managing. Director of the Co-operative or the Chairman of the co-operative Society and he must approve the same; here different officials of the Company allow these leave applications or signed the leave accounts that too in their own designations. The Company officials use the letter heads for the purpose of making correspondence of the co-operative Society. Director of the Co-operative or the Chairman of the co-operative Society and he must approve the same; here different officials of the Company allow these leave applications or signed the leave accounts that too in their own designations. The Company officials use the letter heads for the purpose of making correspondence of the co-operative Society. All these factors go to show that when management, control, supervision and to a good extent finance is being made by the company itself, the employees of the Co-operative Stores cannot be termed as Co-operative employees and it can be safely said that they : are direct employees of the Company. ( 41 ) I, therefore, uphold the award passed by the learned 9th Industrial tribunal, Durgapur in Case No. X-l/87 and I direct the Company to treat the workmen employed in various units of IISCO Employees' Consumers co-operative Stores Ltd. both at Burnpur and Kulti as workmen of m/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and to treat them at par with the company employees and to give benefits to the said Co-operative employees at par with the Company employees within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order. ( 42 ) THE Company will also include the workmen on the Co-operative at the pay roll of the. Company within die date stipulated above. ( 43 ) THE writ application therefore fails and is dismissed. ( 44 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 45 ) URGENT xerox certified copy, if applied for, will be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible upon usual undertaking. Writ disallowed