JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 3367/2006 lodged by the present Appellant declining to suspend the operation of the award dated 17.12.2005 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, in Reference No. 5(c) of 2002. The writ Appellant being aggrieved by the said award had sought the annulment thereof in the writ proceeding. In M.C. 3298/2006 related to this appeal, by order dated 26.9.2006, the interim relief as prayed for was granted. By order dated 8.1.2007 thereafter, this writ appeal was directed to be heard along with the aforementioned writ petition. Arguments have accordingly been advanced and this adjudication would dispose of the writ proceeding as well on merits. 2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Phukan, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N.C. Das, Sr. Advocate, being assisted by Mr. M.K. Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. B. Chakraborty, Advocate for the Respondent association. 3. As aforesaid, the Appellant Bank had approached this Court with a challenge to the award dated 17.12.2005 of the learned Tribunal whereby it had answered the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the concerned canteen boys and directed it to regularise their services as sub-staff of the Bank from the dates of their respective appointments and accord appropriate pay scales therefrom. The Respondent association claims to be comprised of canteen boys who are engaged as the staff of the canteens of the Bank in different branches. Some members are also engaged from the year 1984. The association had earlier instituted C.R. 4509/1994 in this Court seeking an appropriate writ for absorption of its members as regular employees of their Bank from the dates of their initial appointment and sanction of regular pay scale with all allowances reckonable therefrom. The claim was resisted by the Appellant Bank. By the judgment and order dated 23.2.1999, the writ petition was allowed whereafter WA 363/1999 was preferred by the Appellant Bank and a Division Bench of this Court by its decision dated 5.12.2001 interfered with the determination of the learned Single Judge and permitted the Appellant Bank to submit the pleadings of the case before the appropriate department of the Central Government for reference of the dispute for adjudication under the Act. A time frame was also fixed for the various stages of the exercise to be undertaken accordingly. The Appellant Bank having complied with the said directions, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, vide its notification No. 17/7/89-B.O. III(ii) dated 28.8.1990 referred the industrial dispute on the above issue between the parties to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, which accordingly was registered as Reference No. 5 (c) of 2002, the terms of reference being as hereunder: (1) Whether the claim of Central Bank Canteen Boys Association for regularisation of Shri Akhil Barman and 23 Ors. (as per list attached) in service of the Central Bank of India in Sub-staff cadre as also payment of appropriate scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment is justified and legal? If not, what relief the members of the Association concerned are entitled to? 4. On receipt of the notice of the reference, the parties entered appearance and submitted their pleadings. They also adduced oral and documentary evidence whereafter the referred issues were decided in favour of the Respondent association. As it (Respondent association) has not offered its pleadings in the writ proceeding, it would be essential to synopsis the recorded contentions of the parties as scripted in their written statement in the reference proceedings. 5. According to the Respondent association, it is a Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. While espousing the cause of 24 canteen staff/boys engaged in various branches of the Bank through out the North Eastern Region of the country, over a number of years between 1984 and 1993, it asserted that these canteens had been set up by the Bank as a measure of staff welfare and directed and supervised by the Canteen Committees set up by it (Bank). These Committees are all manned by officers working in different branches and are responsible for the administrative control thereof. It maintained that the management of the branches with the approval of the higher authorities have complete and total control over the canteens and the workers thereof with regard to their recruitment/termination, payment of salary etc. and that the duration of the services to be rendered by them extend beyond banking hours. While contending that its members are being paid salary ranging from Rs. 350/- to Rs. and that the duration of the services to be rendered by them extend beyond banking hours. While contending that its members are being paid salary ranging from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 550/- per month depending on staff strength of a particular branch of the Bank, the Association asserted that the same was being paid by the respective Canteen Committees to be subsequently reimbursed by the Bank by way of subsidy. It also contended that the canteens were also being provided with money to purchase utensils and meet other related expenses besides providing space, electricity etc. It however conceded absence of any rules governing the service conditions of the canteen boys relating recruitment, termination etc. therefore exposing them to want of security of tenure of services with the risk of being dismissed or thrown out on flimsy pretexts. Lack of service benefits like regular scale of pay, leave, medical allowances etc. enjoyed by regular employees are also casualties for the said reason for the canteen staff/boys, it pleaded. The association further stated that its members in addition to the duties in the canteen are required to look after the needs of the employees of the respective branches of the Bank more particularly cleaning job and conservancy services from time to time for which they are remunerated on daily wage basis with supporting vouchers as the testament thereto. It cited as well the instance of the canteen boys of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Limited, which has since been amalgamated with the Central Bank of India ensuing their absorption as regular Sub-staff of the Appellant Bank. According to the association, prior to such amalgamation, the canteen boys of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank were also paid salaries through the Canteen Committees thereof. Reference was also made by the Appellant Bank circular No. 98:91:022 dated 12.3.1991 as well as that of Ministry of Finance, Government of India, as the controlling authority of all nationalised banks seeking to treat the staff of the non-statutory canteens as Central Government employees with all incidental benefits of the regular staff. 6. In controversion, the Appellant Bank while dismissing the claim of the Association pleaded that it was under no obligation to provide any canteen service to its staff and, therefore, no question of its supervision and control of the canteens in its different branches in the Northeastern Region did arise. 6. In controversion, the Appellant Bank while dismissing the claim of the Association pleaded that it was under no obligation to provide any canteen service to its staff and, therefore, no question of its supervision and control of the canteens in its different branches in the Northeastern Region did arise. It averred that these canteens are run by canteen committees, the members whereof are from its staff. While admitting that the affairs of the canteens are being managed by such canteen committees and that the 24 canteen boys/staff concerned had been engaged by them, the Appellant Bank categorically asserted that it had no connection whatsoever with the canteens or their affairs. It also stated about its lack of authority to take any disciplinary action or direct any canteen boy to do a particular work in the day to day administration of the affairs of the Bank. It clarified that it had no statutory obligation to run such canteens. According to it, the canteen committees were the sole authority to terminate the services of the canteen boys and that therefore they could by no means be construed to be the employees of the Bank. While disclosing that the canteen committees pay the salaries of the canteen boys/staff, the Appellant Bank asserted that the canteens are not constituents of its establishment. It further avowed that the concerned canteen boys/staff had been engaged by committees on terms and conditions fixed by the canteen committees and not by the Bank. It also maintained that persons claiming equal status with that of Sub-staff ought to possess minimum requisite qualification as prescribed by its Rules/Regulations. It, however, admitted to provide certain subsidy for the purpose of running the canteen but insisted that the expenditure towards salary of the canteen boys made by the canteen committees is not reimbursed by it. It also averred that the concerned canteen boys/staff did not discharge any duty similar to that of the Sub-staff of the Bank. It added that recruitment to its service is governed by its service rules and as the posts inter alia of the Sub-staff thereof are in public employment, it is impermissible for it to deviate from the norms prescribed therefore. 7. It added that recruitment to its service is governed by its service rules and as the posts inter alia of the Sub-staff thereof are in public employment, it is impermissible for it to deviate from the norms prescribed therefore. 7. In course of the proceedings, in support of its pleaded averments, the Appellant Bank examined two witnesses namely Shri Utpal Baruah, Manager (P), Central Bank of India, Guwahati (MW 1) and Shri Jaminimohan Rajbangshi, Peon, Central Bank of India, Bhangagarh (MW 2). The Respondent Association also adduced evidence of Shri Golak Ch. Das (WW 1) and Shri Khanindra Kr. Sarma (WW 2). The ultimate conclusion of the learned Tribunal, as the impugned award reveals, is founded on the following determinations: 1. The canteens were established in the different branches of the Bank as a part of welfare scheme and inconformity with its policy decision. 2. The Bank provided all the facilities to run such canteens. 3. The Bank formed some committees of its employees for appropriate functioning of the canteens. 4. Outsiders were not allowed to avail these facilities of the canteens. 5. The Banks subsidized the facilities of the canteens. 6. The bank thus has obligation to provide a canteen for the convenience of its employees though not statutory. 7. The canteens thus constitute an integral part of the establishment of the Bank. The following operative direction was thus issued: Considering the materials available before me, I am constrained to hold that the claim of the canteen Boys' Association for regularization of their services as Sub-staff is justified. The management is directed to regularize the services of the canteen boys from the date of their respective appointments and to pay them appropriate pay scales from the dates of their regularization. The reference is answered accordingly. 8. Mr. Phukan has insistently argued that Bank being not under any statutory obligation or otherwise to establish any canteen and conduct the same, in the attendant facts and circumstances, no relationship of master and servant exists between the parties and that therefore the Respondent association's claim for regularisation of the services of the concerned canteen boys/staff is wholly unsustainable in law. Phukan has insistently argued that Bank being not under any statutory obligation or otherwise to establish any canteen and conduct the same, in the attendant facts and circumstances, no relationship of master and servant exists between the parties and that therefore the Respondent association's claim for regularisation of the services of the concerned canteen boys/staff is wholly unsustainable in law. There being no supervision over the said canteens by the Bank or any disciplinary control over the concerned canteen boys/staff, in the face of its Rules and Regulations prescribing the mode of recruitment and the conditions of services, the directions in the impugned award are patently illegal and are liable to be adjudged non est, he maintained. Mr. Phukan reiterated that the concerned canteen boys/staff had been appointed by the respective canteen committees and not by the Bank and that it being wholly bereft of any control over them, could not have been directed to accommodate them in the regular staff in supersession of its Rules/Regulations governing recruitment thereto. The learned Sr. Counsel while maintaining that the claim as made by the Respondent association when judged in the backdrop of facts is wholly untenable and that the impugned award if implemented would not only result in total dislocation in the organisational set up but lead to a slew of unwanted litigation also rejected the analogy of the canteen boys/staff of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank pleading that the judgment and order dated 8.7.1993 passed in WA 24/93 and WA 29/93 sustaining their claim are on materially different considerations. The learned Sr. Counsel sought to endorse his contentions by drawing sustenance from the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association, (2006) 1 SCC 567 and an unreported judgment and order dated 21/8/2007 rendered by it in Appeal (Civil) 1587/2005, Canteen Mazdoor Sabha Metallurgical Engg. Consultants (I) Ltd. and Ors.. 9. In reply Mr. Chakraborty contended that the findings recorded in the award being those of facts based on an appropriate evaluation of the materials on record, this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review would not lightly displace the same. The learned Counsel inter alia referred to certain documents namely exhibits D, G, F, K, L and M to substantiate the conclusions of the learned Tribunal. The learned Counsel inter alia referred to certain documents namely exhibits D, G, F, K, L and M to substantiate the conclusions of the learned Tribunal. He contended that the Banks Rules/Regulations pertaining to recruitment and conditions of service of its Sub-staff can by no means be an impediment to the implementation of the directions contained in the award in proclamation of the right of the concerned canteen boys/staff to the reliefs accorded thereby. He placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court to reinforce his arguments. Parimal Chandra Raha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR 1995 SC 1666 , Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union AIR 2000 SC 1508 , G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Patnagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2000 SC 2695 , State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association (2006) 1 SCC 567 . 10. The pleaded facts and the documents as available as well as the records of the reference proceedings have been perused to appropriately marshal the rival submissions. The moot issue that would decide the course of the adjudication pertains to the obligation, if any, of the Respondent Bank to provide a canteen in its branches as a welfare measure for its staff and employees as an integral segment of the organisational paradigm. The parties are one that no statutory obligation is cast on it. Whereas the Respondent Bank denies any obligation to set up a canteen with the incidental logistics and ensure the consequential facilities exclusively for its staff and employees either as a welfare measure or as a condition of their services, the Respondent association contends to the contrary. Two broadly admitted features, however, surface from the otherwise contentious fronts which can be paraphrased thus: (i) The canteens are administered by respective Canteen Committees constituted by the members of the staff of the Bank. (ii) The Bank provides subsidy for running of the canteens. 11. The documentary evidence adduced by the Respondent association in the reference proceedings deserves reference at this stage. Exhibit G is a note dated 17.5.1994 put up by the ZSTC, Guwahati, before the Deputy General Manager of the Respondent Bank pertaining to canteen facilities thereat. (ii) The Bank provides subsidy for running of the canteens. 11. The documentary evidence adduced by the Respondent association in the reference proceedings deserves reference at this stage. Exhibit G is a note dated 17.5.1994 put up by the ZSTC, Guwahati, before the Deputy General Manager of the Respondent Bank pertaining to canteen facilities thereat. The note mention that with a view to provide good quality refreshments and to overcome the problems faced by the Centre, a decision had been taken to establish a separate canteen to cater to the needs thereof. Reference of disassociation of Bhangagarh Branch with the C.I.A. Office staff due to the establishment of their own staff canteen was made. The note mentioned about an interaction with the Marketing Manager (LPG), IOC, Guwahati, to award one LPG connection on priority basis for the proposed canteen. Sanction was, therefore, sought for from the said higher authority for the said connection. 12. The evidence on record establish that such a connection was thereafter allotted following which official communications were exchanged between the Branch Manager, Dispur Branch, the Area Manager, IOC (MD), and the Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Guwahati, on 24.6.1994 and 8.8.1994 (Exhibit D). That the LPG connection so sanctioned was for the staff canteen is evident therefrom. Exhibit F is a document in the letterhead of the Respondent bank whereby requisition for crockeries and utensils and pressure cookers as illustrated therein was made. 13. The office circular No. B.I.D. 16/152-c dated 9.11.1968 issued by the Respondent Bank to all its controlling branches in the country (Exhibit L) reveals a decision to allow certain facilities for establishing a staff canteen at branches established at State Headquarters and/or at Group Headquarters where there was a suitable lunch room already in existence. Articles namely cutlery, crockery, furniture and facilities like cooking gas, electricity, water were accordingly directed thereby to be provided. The canteen managing committees were permitted to employ cooks or service bearer at the said canteens. The Branches were authorised to agree for reimbursement of the wages payable to them. Thereby certain informations with regard to the number of full time staff engaged, articles already supplied, subsidy accorded, infrastructural details visa-vis existing canteens were also sought for. The Branches were instructed to forward the list of crockeries and other essentials to the Establishment/Departments of the Head Offices. Thereby certain informations with regard to the number of full time staff engaged, articles already supplied, subsidy accorded, infrastructural details visa-vis existing canteens were also sought for. The Branches were instructed to forward the list of crockeries and other essentials to the Establishment/Departments of the Head Offices. Exhibit J, Exhibit M, Exhibit O, Exhibit Q are the various communications from the concerned authorities of the Respondent Bank relating to enhancement in canteen subsidy from time to time. 14. These documents inter alia establish the decision of the Respondent Bank to promote the facilities for establishing staff canteens at its branches and its willingness to arrange the functional essentials therefore apart from granting subsidy to reimburse the accruing expenses for the administration of the same. That from time to time the canteen subsidy has been enhanced to keep pace with the rise in the service charges is also evident from the relevant documents as aforementioned. The Respondent association's assertions that the canteen hours coincide with the Bank timings and that no outsider is allowed to avail the facilities of the canteen have also not been seriously disputed by the Bank. The Respondent association has further endeavoured to prove that the Respondent Bank provides electricity and water connection to the canteens. Exhibit L, the Office circular dated 9.11.1968 also indicates the permissibility for the Branches to reimburse the wages of the cooks and service bearers to be employed by the canteen management committee. It is only if all these cognate factors constitute establishment of the canteens at the various branches of the Respondent bank all over the country as well as operation thereof by it for all intents and purposes that the said canteens can assuredly be said to be a constituent unit of the Respondent Bank with all ensuing rights and obligations vis-a-vis the canteen boys/staff. In contra distinction, however, if these sum upto steps by the Respondent Bank only to promote the facilities of canteen services at its branches, the same deduction would not necessarily follow. As several such common determinants for over the years have engaged the attention of various courts and more importantly, the Apex Court, it would be expedient to advert to the authorities cited at the Bar. 15. In MMR Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. As several such common determinants for over the years have engaged the attention of various courts and more importantly, the Apex Court, it would be expedient to advert to the authorities cited at the Bar. 15. In MMR Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1990 (Supp) SCC 191, the Apex Court was seized inter alia with the issue of classification made between the employees of the three categories of canteens run by different railway establishment of the country namely (i) statutory canteens required to be provided compulsorily under the Factories Act, 1948, (ii) non-statutory recognised canteens and (iii) non-statutory non-recognised canteens. Their Lordships though declared that no distinction could be made between the employees of statutory canteens and non-statutory recognised canteens required to be established under para 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual, adjudged the employees of the non-statutory non-recognised canteens to be disentitled to claim the status of Railway Service. It was held that these canteens were run more or less on ad hoc basis with Railway Administration having no control on the canteens. That there is no record of these canteens nor of the contractors or of the workers who work therein was also noted. 16. The contextual facts in State Bank of India and Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle) and Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 531 , disclosed that in terms of two agreements between the Management of the State Bank of India and the Staff Federation, the former had agreed to start staff canteens only at its branches having a minimum staff strength of 150 and 100 respectively. The Calcutta High Court, however, held that even the other canteen workers were entitled to be absorbed as employees of the Bank. Being aggrieved, the Bank filed appeals against the decision. Though the parties agreed that there was no statutory obligation on the Bank to provide a canteen to its employees, the Employees Union contended that in Shastry Award it did have so. To endorse this stand reliance was also placed on the handbook of staff welfare activities prepared by the Bank. Contending that the local implementation committees, which used to run the canteens were composed of the employees of the Bank and were under its direct control, the union alleged discrimination, if the other canteen workers beyond the purview of the two agreements were left out. 17. Contending that the local implementation committees, which used to run the canteens were composed of the employees of the Bank and were under its direct control, the union alleged discrimination, if the other canteen workers beyond the purview of the two agreements were left out. 17. The Apex Court, on an interpretation of the relevant paragraph of the Shastry Award decided against the obligation on the Bank to provide canteens at its branches. It was held that the handbook of the staff welfare activities prepared by the Bank only ear marked the fund for providing amenities to the staff and carrying out welfare activities for the employees of the Bank as a whole which included amongst Ors. Clause (iv) qua promotion of canteen facilities. 18. The Apex Court noticed the absence of any requirement of the Bank to establish canteens or provide canteen facilities in consonance with the welfare scheme so envisaged which contemplated grant of subsidy for various welfare activities depending upon the requirement in various branches. Their Lordships thus concluded in the facts of the case that there was no obligation statutory or otherwise of the Bank to run the canteens and the Welfare scheme only provided for grant of subsidy for promoting running of the canteen. It also noticed that the canteen workers were not employed by the Bank and that it did neither supervise nor control the working of the canteen or the employees appointed by the local implementing committee. Their Lordships held the view that even if the privilege of providing canteen facilities to the employees could be presumed to exist, the same could not be equated to the running of the canteen by the Bank. The distinction between "promotion and providing" of canteen facilitates was underlined. It was thus enunciated that the provision in the welfare scheme for promotion of canteen facilities did not signify establishment of a canteen by the Bank so much so to cast on it any obligation statutory or otherwise to run the same as an integral component of its establishment. 19. The decision in Parimal Chandra Raha, supra, involved a claim of 42 workmen working in the canteens of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in Calcutta seeking a declaration of their status as regular employees thereof and minimum salary paid to the equivalent staff by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 19. The decision in Parimal Chandra Raha, supra, involved a claim of 42 workmen working in the canteens of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in Calcutta seeking a declaration of their status as regular employees thereof and minimum salary paid to the equivalent staff by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. They claimed that the canteens were managed by the Corporation and as canteen workers they were engaged in an operation incidentally connected with the industry carried on by the Respondent. The Corporation refuted the contention asserting inter alia that it only provided the facilities to run the canteen which infact were conducted by the canteen committees of the staff or their cooperative societies through contractors and that the Appellants were engaged by the contractors or the cooperative societies. It denied to have any association with the Appellants far less any contract of employment with them. It also asserted absence of any control over their working or conditions of service and disowned them to be its employees. 20. In the facts of the case, their Lordships noticed that the Corporation had not explicitly undertaken to provide canteen service to its employees and that its only obligation was to provide to the employees facilities to run canteen, such as premises, furniture, electricity, water etc. On a detailed analysis of the facts further as well as the contemporaneous documents their Lordships determined that the Corporation had nevertheless implicitly accepted the obligation to provide canteen service. This inter alia was deduced from contemporaneous agreements and the absence of the Corporation's refutation of the Appellants plea that the canteen facilities was a condition of service of the employees thereof and that the canteen was incidental to the running of its business. The documents inter alia demonstrating that the quotations for various requisites for the canteens had been invited by the Corporation and its control over the detailed activities of the canteen were taken note of to hold that the canteen service had been provided to the employees of the Corporation for a long time. Their Lordships on a survey of the various earlier decisions of the Apex Court catalogued the following broad features. Their Lordships on a survey of the various earlier decisions of the Apex Court catalogued the following broad features. (i) Where, as under the provisions of the Factories Act, it is statutorily obligatory on the employer to provide and maintain canteen for the use of his employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and, therefore, the workers employed in such canteen are the employees of the management. (ii) Where, although it is not statutorily obligatory to provide a canteen, it is otherwise an obligation on the employer to provide a canteen, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers working in the canteen, the employees of the management. The obligation to provide a canteen has to be distinguished from the obligation to provide facilities to run canteen. The canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation does not become a part of the establishment. (iii) The obligation to provide canteen may be explicit or implicit. Where the obligation is not explicitly accepted by or cast upon the employer either by an agreement or an award etc., it may be inferred from the circumstances, and the provision of the canteen may be held to have become a part of the service conditions of the employees. Whether the provision for canteen services has become a part of the service conditions or not, is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances in each case. Where to provide canteen services has become a part of the service conditions of the employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers in such canteen become the employees of the management. Where to provide canteen services has become a part of the service conditions of the employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers in such canteen become the employees of the management. (iv) Whether a particular facility or service has become implicitly a part of the service conditions of the employees or not, will depend, among Ors., on the nature of the service/facility, the contribution the service in question makes to the efficiency of the employees and the establishment, whether the service is available as a matter of right to all the employees in their capacity as employees and nothing more, the number of employees employed in the establishment and the number of employees who avail of the service, the length of time for which the service has been continuously available, the hours during which it is available, the nature and character of the management, the interest taken by the employer in providing, maintaining, supervising and controlling the services, the contribution made by the management in the form of infrastructure and funds for making the service available etc. 21. As would be apparent from hereinabove items (iii) contemplates that the obligation to provide canteen may be explicit or implicit to be inferred from the attendant circumstances. 22. The decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union, supra, involved a common grievance of the 33 employees of Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen. The canteen, which was lodged in the Central Office of the Appellant Bank, was run through a contractor engaged by its management initially and thereafter on cooperative basis. The Central Office of the Bank provided all infrastructure facilities and to that effect credited periodical funds to the account opened in the name of the canteen to carry on the day to day administration. The facts revealed that the amount of contribution and the subsidy was being enhanced from time to time depending on the escalation in the cost of maintenance. As inspite of such enhancements, it was gradually becoming economically unviable to run the canteens, it was closed as the Bank remain non-responsive. 23. As the closure of the canteen resulted in the ouster of the workers engaged therein, a dispute arose and had to be eventually referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As inspite of such enhancements, it was gradually becoming economically unviable to run the canteens, it was closed as the Bank remain non-responsive. 23. As the closure of the canteen resulted in the ouster of the workers engaged therein, a dispute arose and had to be eventually referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The stand taken by the Central Office of the Bank was that except providing the facilities as well as funds in the nature of grants in subsidy, the staff canteen was operated only by the promoters by engaging the required workers and that there was no nexus of employer and employee between the Bank and the workers of the canteen. 24. The learned Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, decided the reference in favour of the workman. The said determination having been challenged before the Madras High Court, a Single Bench thereof interfered with the award. On appeal being preferred therefrom, the Division Bench, however, restored it. Their Lordships of the Apex Court held that the nature of tests to be applied for ascertaining the existence or otherwise of the relationship of master and servant cannot be confined to or concretised into fixed formula(s) for universal application invariably for all classes or categories of cases and, therefore, it would neither be possible nor desirable to lay down abstract principles or rules to serve as a ready reckoner for all situations. 25. Their Lordships opined that such an approval would only help to perpetuate unfair labour practices than rendering substantial justice to the class of persons who are invariably exploited on account of their inability to dictate terms relating to the conditions of their service. It was propounded that a cumulative consideration of a few or any of such factors, by themselves or in combination with other relevant aspects, may serve to be the safe and effective method to ultimately decide this often agitated question. 26. The Apex Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench by taking note inter alia of the facts namely: - (i) the Bank had arranged to run the canteen through a contractor at some point of time, (ii) nature and extent of assistance, financial and otherwise provided by it. 26. The Apex Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench by taking note inter alia of the facts namely: - (i) the Bank had arranged to run the canteen through a contractor at some point of time, (ii) nature and extent of assistance, financial and otherwise provided by it. (iii) the obligation to provide canteen service though there may not be statutory, (iv) the Bank had always been conscious of the fact that the provision for canteen service for the staff is not only essential but would help to contribute to efficiency, (vi) the canteen services were restricted only to its employees, (vii) the subsidy rate per employee was being provided, (viii) the working hours and days of the canteen were strictly those of the Bank, (ix) no part of the capital required to run the same was contributed by anybody else, i.e. the promoters or the staff using the same and (x) the canteen workers were enlisted under the welfare fund scheme of the Bank besides making them eligible for periodical medical check up by the doctors of the Bank and admitting them to the benefits of the provident fund scheme. 27. The Cafeteria workers in Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, supra, had claimed regularisation of the services. The same having been declined the emergent industrial dispute was referred to the learned jurisdictional Labour Court for adjudication. The industrial Court having upheld the claim of the workman concerned, the University invoked the writ jurisdiction of the concerned High Court, which refused to interfere. The Apex Court, on a scrutiny of the relevant regulations framed under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958, discerned the obligation of the University to provide food services to the inmates of the hospital for which the cafeteria was being maintained. Their Lordships were of the further view, on a detailed analysis of the facts that the control of the University in the mater of running of the cafeteria was clearly decipherable. The Apex Court harked upon the constitutional ideology of social and economic justice and rejected the plea of heavy financial implication qua the university in case the claim of the cafeteria workers was upheld. Their services were directed to be regularised in terms of the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 28. The Apex Court harked upon the constitutional ideology of social and economic justice and rejected the plea of heavy financial implication qua the university in case the claim of the cafeteria workers was upheld. Their services were directed to be regularised in terms of the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 28. In State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association (supra), the claim of the KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association in essence was to be treated as employees of the State. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court sustained the plea and in the appeal preferred by the State Government, a Division Bench disposed of the same by modifying the date of regularisation of the services of the said employees as well as the payment of backwages. The Apex Court noticed that the State had no statutory compulsion to run and maintain any canteen for its employees. According to their Lordships, the case involved highly disputed questions of facts. The Apex Court disapproved the intervention of the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also the direction for regularisation of the services of the employees who had not been appointed in terms of the extant service rules framed either under the enactment or the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 29. In Canteen Mazdoor Sabha, supra, the kernel of the dissension was the existence of relationship, if any, of master and servant or employer or employee between the workers and the canteen of Metallurgical Engineering Consultants (I) (for short hereafter referred to as the MECON) run by the MECON Welfare Committee and the Management of MECON so as to be treated at par with the employees working in the VIP Guest House and Tea Club of MECON by treating them to be its regular employees. While addressing this issue, the Apex Court recorded that the canteen was not managed by the Management of MECON and that the identicalness of the duties discharged by workers thereof and of the employees of the VIP Guest House and Tea Club did neither establish a relationship of the master and servant as urged nor entitled them to parity of pay as claimed. Their Lordships further noticed that the canteen was not run either under a statutory obligation or one arising out of Standing Orders or the binding Circulars of MECON and that there was no contract between it and the employees of the canteen to the effect the canteen service would be a part of the service conditions of the employees of the Management. It was discernible that the workman of the VIP Guest House and Tea Club of MECON were being appointed by it (MECON) and that the management had no control whatsoever on them who had been engaged by the canteen committee. The Apex Court referred inter alia to its earlier decision in MMR Khan and Ors., supra, and State Bank of India and Ors., supra, while highlighting the difference between promotion and providing canteen services. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. V. Charanjit Singh and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 321 their Lordships concluded that difference in educational qualifications and the modes of selection amongst Ors. were factors weighing against the invocation of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. It was held that mere similarity in the volume of work was not enough to sanction this privilege and that qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility was one of the decisive determinants. The claim of the employees was thus declined. 30. A reading of the office circular dated 9.11.1968 whereby the decision to allow certain facilities for establishing a staff canteen at the branches of the Respondent Bank had been conveyed together with the institutional instructions in connection therewith per se, in our opinion does not unequivocally demonstrate that thereby it (Respondent Bank) had taken upon itself the obligation either to set up the canteens or assume to itself all responsibilities to provide canteen service as a condition of service of its staff and employees. The instructions contained in the said office circular at the most denote its decision to promote the necessary steps for promotion of the canteen facilities to be singularly supervised and conducted by the respective canteen managing committees. The approval to reimburse the expenses to the extent as disclosed in the said office circular by way of subsidy does not either detract from this notion or is irreconcilably incompatible therewith. The approval to reimburse the expenses to the extent as disclosed in the said office circular by way of subsidy does not either detract from this notion or is irreconcilably incompatible therewith. The decision from time to time to enhance the canteen subsidy has to be essentially construed in this perspective. Judged by the preponderant judicial opinion, as adumbrated in the aforementioned authorities as well as the revelations on the essential facts as obtained in the instant case, we do not feel persuaded to hold that the canteens at the different branches of the Respondent Bank form integral units of the establishment so as to regard the concerned canteen staff/boys to be its employees for being accorded the reliefs as prayed for. The learned Industrial Tribunal, in our estimate, had misdirected itself in interpreting the office circular dated 9.11.1968 and the decisions referred to by it in recording a finding to the contrary. We, therefore, find ourselves in disagreement with the conclusion that the canteens had been established in different branches of the Bank as a part of its welfare scheme and in execution of its policy decision to this effect. Its finding that the Respondent Bank therefore had an obligation to provide a canteen for its employees convenience having been drawn from that deduction is also untenable. Its assumption that, even if not under a statute, an employer is otherwise under an obligation to provide a canteen to its employees is also a determination dehors any enunciation of a principle of law to that effect by the Apex Court There being a clear distinction between promotion of facilities to run a canteen and to establish it, the fact that the canteen committees were constituted by the officers and employees of the Bank and that the access of outsiders to the canteen facilities was prohibited ipso facto do not warrant a conclusion that the canteens were the constituent units of the establishment of the Respondent Bank. 31. The impugned award, therefore, is unsustainable in law and on facts and is hereby interfered with. The written instructions and the documents produced in course of the arguments amply establish that recruitment amongst Ors. as subordinate staff cadre of the Respondent Bank is governed by its recruitment policy which inter aha prescribe the academic qualification and age of eligibility and also the procedure therefore. The written instructions and the documents produced in course of the arguments amply establish that recruitment amongst Ors. as subordinate staff cadre of the Respondent Bank is governed by its recruitment policy which inter aha prescribe the academic qualification and age of eligibility and also the procedure therefore. The provision for verification of other personal traits and antecedents are also stipulated thereby. The circular of the Respondent Bank as well as the office memorandum of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, referred to by the Respondent Association presuppose that the persons sought to be benefited are the employees of the Bank and all the non-statutory departmental canteens respectively. In the face of the conclusions recorded here in above, declining to accept the canteens as inseverable segments of Bank's establishment, this office circular/office memorandum is of no relevance or utility for the Respondent association. 32. There is no wrangle at the bar that the tea boys or the canteen boys of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank which has since merged with the Respondent Bank on the basis of a scheme notified by the concerned department of the Government of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, stand on a footing different from that of the concerned canteen boys/staff whose cause is being espoused by the Respondent association in the instant appeal. It is patent from the judgment and order dated 8.7.1993 passed in WA 24/93 and WA 29/93 that the finding that the tea boys/canteen boys of the Purbanchal Bank before its amalgamation with the Respondent Bank were its employees had reached a finality. The contemporaneous records also substantiate the obligation of the Purbanchal Bank to assume the responsibility for payment of wages or salary of the said tea boys/canteen boys. It was thus held by a Division Bench of this Court in the said appeals that in view of Section 45(5)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1945, that they were to be treated as employees of the Respondent Bank under the scheme of amalgamation. The analogy of the tea boys/canteen boys of the Purbanchal Bank is clearly not available for the canteen boys/staff of the Respondent association. 33. On a totality of the factors as hereinabove, we are constrained to hold that the claims raised by the Respondent association are not sustainable in law. The writ appeal as well as the writ petition are thus allowed. 33. On a totality of the factors as hereinabove, we are constrained to hold that the claims raised by the Respondent association are not sustainable in law. The writ appeal as well as the writ petition are thus allowed. To reiterate the impugned award dated 17.12.2005 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati, is set aside. 34. The above notwithstanding, it would be open for the Respondent association to submit appropriate representation (s) before the concerned authorities of the Respondent Bank for considering the cases of the concerned canteen boys/staff for recruitment as subordinate staff or to any other post commensurate to their academic and other qualification, if necessary, by relaxing the recruitment policy on the relevant facets of the conditions of eligibility prescribed thereby. This liberty is granted to the Respondent association in view of the admitted fact that the canteens at the various branches of the Respondent bank are in existence since long and the obvious promotional steps and initiatives taken by it from time to time are to facilitate the continuance thereof. Needless to say, if such representation (s) are submitted, the Respondent Bank would adopt a compassionate and realistic approach thereto and do the needful in its discretion, however, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date (s) of the submission thereof. No costs. Appeal allowed.