ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioner/New Mangalore Port & Dock Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Union’ for short) is at the doors of this Court calling in question a notice of tender dated 26.04.2021, for providing Canteen/Mess services at Wharf Cafeteria at the respondent - New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’ for short) for a period of two years and has sought to maintain status quo with regard to running of the canteen in the respondent – Trust with the existing employees. 2. Heard Sri Clifton D’Rozario along with Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The Union is said to be representing the interest of canteen workers of the respondent/Trust and is said to be working since several years. The Trust started its operations in the year 1972-73 under the Ministry of Shipping and Transport, New Delhi. It was brought under the ambit of Major Port Trust Act with effect from 01-04-1980. The business and other affairs of the respondent are completely controlled by the Board of Trustees of the Trust in terms of Section 3 of the Major Port Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner/Union has about 600 employees, who are carrying out various jobs at the Wharf. In addition to permanent staff in the Trust, the Trust also employs casual workers through contractors who are about 400 in number. The Trust is said to have license to carry out its activities under the Factories Act . The Trust has established a Wharf canteen as a statutory obligation and welfare measure to its workmen. The Wharf canteen started in the year 1977 and has been functioning since then. 4. The averment in the petition is that, there are about 1500 employees in the Trust who use the canteen at Wharf. Until 1999- 2000, the Wharf canteen was run as a registered canteen with the Director of Canteens, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs. Later, it appears that the Department sought to bring down the Wharf canteen from its ambit. It is then about 22 workers employed in Wharf canteen in various jobs were continued but not as permanent workmen but through a cooperative society. Later, it appears that the Department sought to bring down the Wharf canteen from its ambit. It is then about 22 workers employed in Wharf canteen in various jobs were continued but not as permanent workmen but through a cooperative society. It is also averred that, it is an artificial intermediary in which the Trust retained its rights. A cooperative society was created by the Trust to run the canteen in the year 1977 in the name and style of New Mangalore Port Wharf Co-operative Canteen (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’ for short) The employees were always under the administrative control of the Trust. Things continued in this manner. The creation of the Society by the Trust was for the sole purpose of running the canteen. The Society did not take up any other work or any other job as it was exclusively for the employees of the canteen division. 5. The petitioner/Union is said to have raised a dispute before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Mangalore who initiated conciliation process on 15-04-2016 for consideration of the employees of the petitioner/Union as permanent workers and declaring them to become entitled to all benefits. The conciliation ended in failure. The report of failure of conciliation was notified. The matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (‘the Tribunal’ for short) for adjudication of right of the petitioner. The said reference was then registered as C.R.No.30 of 2016. The proceedings are said to be pending before the Tribunal. During the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, a tender comes to be notified by the Trust exclusively for providing canteen and mess services at Wharf Cafeteria for a period of two years. The tender dated 26.04.2021 was to be open between 05-05-2021 and 17-05-2021. It is then the petitioner/Union knocks at the doors of this court in the subject petition calling in question the notification of tender as the members of the petitioner were still working. 6. This Court has passed slew of orders, one of which was on 25-06-2021 which directed that services conditions of the members of the petitioner should not be altered till further orders on the interim prayer. The coordinate bench on 04-05-2023, passes the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner - Union submits that the members of the petitioner - Union have not been paid monthly wages since December, 2020. The coordinate bench on 04-05-2023, passes the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner - Union submits that the members of the petitioner - Union have not been paid monthly wages since December, 2020. He, therefore, seeks for a direction to the respondent to ensure that the wages of the members of the petitioner - Union are paid. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent - trust is only issuing a subsidy and it has never borne the obligation of paying the wages to the members of the petitioner - Union. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that Annexure-R2 indicates that the monthly subsidy was being paid by the respondent - trust and therefore, there is an inherent obligation on the part of the respondent - trust to provide the monthly subsidy so as to facilitate the payment of wages to the members of the petitioner - Union. In view of the above submission, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent - trust to file an affidavit stating as to why the subsidy is not being paid to the Society and also place on record, the agreement or document under which the respondent - Trust has agreed to pay the monthly subsidy to the Society as stated in Annexure-R2. Re-list on 11.05.2023.” The Trust was directed to file an affidavit stating as to why the subsidy is not being paid to the Society and also place on record the agreement or document under which the Trust has agreed to pay the monthly subsidy. The matter is adjourned from time to time and the members of the petitioner continued in terms of the order passed by the Court on 25-06-2021. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Clifton D’Rozario would vehemently contend that the reason for the Trust to call for tender was agitation of the petitioner for regularization or treating the workers as permanent employees. The learned counsel would submit that the Trust started its operations in the year 1972-73 and the Wharf canteen in the year 1977. There are 22 workmen in various categories in the Wharf canteen and they have been working for more than 2 decades. Owing to the fact that they have been working continuously, they demanded regularization as they would fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . There are 22 workmen in various categories in the Wharf canteen and they have been working for more than 2 decades. Owing to the fact that they have been working continuously, they demanded regularization as they would fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . It is his submission that none of these workers were treated as permanent employees but employed through the Society. During the pendency of the reference, only to defeat the rights of the petitioner, the impugned tender is notified. The learned counsel would seek quashment of tender and a direction to the Tribunal to expedite the dispute pending before it. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri R.Subramanya representing the respondent/Trust would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the members of the petitioner are not permanent employees. Their claim seeking absorption or otherwise is pending before the Tribunal. That would not mean that the Trust is precluded from calling for tender to run Wharf canteen. He would submit that the petitioner has no right to contend that its members should be continued for permanence. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The employment of the members of the petitioner/Union is a matter of record. A copy of service register of one of the employees is appended to the petition. It discloses that employment is through the Society, the Wharf Cooperative Canteen Limited. The list of workers employed in the Wharf canteen is also appended to the petition. They are 22 in number. The list is as follows: “List of the workers working in New Mangalore Port Trust, Wharf Canteen Sl. No. Name Date of Joining Designation Wages as on 31st December Date of Birth 1. Vittal Ameen, S/o Late Chennayya poojary 10-01-1986 Cook 21,000.00 01-06-1963 2. Rathnakar Kulal, S/o Late Aithappa Kulal 10-01-1986 Bearer 18,000.00 02-01-1960 3. Shashikanth Kotian, S/o Late Sheena Kotian 01-02-1989 Asst.Cook 19,000.00 31-12-1960 4. Sundara Poojary S/o Honnappa poojary 01-01-1986 Bearer 18,000.00 15-07-1968 5. Sankappa, S/o Late Lingappa 18-12-1989 Bearer 18,000.00 01-06-1967 6. Rajesh S/o Late Lakshmana 10-01-1986 Bearer 18,000.00 01-01-1965 7. Thimmappa M, S/o Mahalinga 01-05-1998 Bearer 16,000.00 01-06-1969 8. Sathish, S/o Sanjeeva 01-05-1998 Bearer 16,000.00 01-12-1973 9. Shashikanth Kotian, S/o Late Sheena Kotian 01-02-1989 Asst.Cook 19,000.00 31-12-1960 4. Sundara Poojary S/o Honnappa poojary 01-01-1986 Bearer 18,000.00 15-07-1968 5. Sankappa, S/o Late Lingappa 18-12-1989 Bearer 18,000.00 01-06-1967 6. Rajesh S/o Late Lakshmana 10-01-1986 Bearer 18,000.00 01-01-1965 7. Thimmappa M, S/o Mahalinga 01-05-1998 Bearer 16,000.00 01-06-1969 8. Sathish, S/o Sanjeeva 01-05-1998 Bearer 16,000.00 01-12-1973 9. Naveen Kumar, S/o Late Sheena poojary 01-05-2011 Wash boy 10,000.00 05-07-1982 10. Jayaram Shetty, S/o Late Ananda Shetty 17-08-2004 Wash boy 15,000.00 27-01-1981 11. Hemanth S/o Late Ramappa 05-08-2008 Wash boy 12,000.00 25-11-1973 12. Shankara Suvarna S/o Late Ponkra poojary 01-08-2008 Asst Cook 14,000.00 15-10-1957 13. Ganesh Suvarna S/o Late Sesappa karkera 01-09-2008 Cook 12,000.00 20-06-1955 14. Stiphen Jerome Martis S/o Late Martin Martis 01-01-2009 Cook 10,000.00 02-10-1957 15. Dinesh S/o Rama Naik 04-09-2008 Wash boy 8,690.00 05-06-1972 16. Vasu S/o Laste Boggu Mukhari 01-09-2008 Wash boy 7,690.00 01-08-1966 17. Nagaraja S. Naik S/o Sevya Naik 04-10-2012 Wash boy 7,690.00 24-06-1982 18. Surakshith S/o Sunder S. Ameen 21-12-2012 Wash boy 6,690.00 16-11-1995 19. Sathish Kunder S/o Late Doomanna Madivala 21-04-2014 Wash boy 6,690.00 07-04-1969 20. Sudarshan S/o Sundara Naik 23-04-2014 Wash boy 6,690.00 24-11-1996 21. Raghavendra S/o Late K. Subba 25-04-2014 Wash boy 6,690.00 01-06-1980 22. Vittal Moolya S/o Kukra Moolya 21-04-2014 Wash boy 6,690.00 12-10-1955 The first of the appointment is on 10-01-1986 and last of the appointment is on 21-04-2014. They are in different capacities in the canteen, like cook, bearer, assistant cook and wash boy. Long after their employment, the petitioner represents to the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking conciliation for permanence of the employees working in the Trust. The right to conciliation dated 15.04.2016, reads as follows: “TO. The Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) Near Mangalore Railway station Mangalore Sir, SUB: PETITION BY THE UNION REPRESENTING WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN WHARF CANTEEN AT NMPT, MANGALORE. ________________________________________________ The Petitioner is a trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and it represents a section of the workmen employed in New Mangalore Port Trust and in the canteens run and maintained by the Management of NMPT. In this petition, the petitioner is espousing the cause of the workmen employed in Wharf Canteen run and maintained by the Management of NMPT. The Petitioner submits that NMPT, Mangalore, is an establishment registered under Indian Port Trusts Act and its nodal Ministry is Ministry of Transport and Shipping, Government of India. In this petition, the petitioner is espousing the cause of the workmen employed in Wharf Canteen run and maintained by the Management of NMPT. The Petitioner submits that NMPT, Mangalore, is an establishment registered under Indian Port Trusts Act and its nodal Ministry is Ministry of Transport and Shipping, Government of India. Therefore, it is an instrumentality of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. NMPT employs more than 250 workmen in their establishment at Mangalore and it is therefore required to run a canteen for the welfare of the workers. Accordingly, apart from another canteen, the Management has been running a canteen at Warf for the last 40 years. The Management of the canteen is with NMPT and it is operated through a Co-operative Society established solely for this purpose. The Management of the Cooperative Society consists of representatives of the NMPT Executive and staff. The affairs of the canteen are supervised and controlled by the Management of NMPT. The Cooperative society is an artificial intermediary set up by NMPT to hoodwink law. It is submitted that the workmen employed in the two canteens, viz, Port and Wharf, were being paid wages on par with the canteen workers employed in Departmental Canteen in Central Government offices till around the year 2000. It used to be with reference to pay and allowances as fixed by the Central Pay Commission from time to time. The workers in the canteen used to be paid Dearness Allowance as declared by the Central Government once in six months. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi in March, 1997 issued a Notification in respect Departmental Canteens regarding regularization of canteen workers. The representative union of NMPT canteen employees approached the Management to treat them as employees of NMPT. This was not accepted by the Management on the ground that canteen in Port and Wharf could not be considered as Departmental Canteens and the Notification of March 1997 had no application for them. This resulted in an industrial dispute being raised by the representative union of canteen workers which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore for adjudication (CR NO79/2000). By this time, the Management of NMPT discontinued payment of wages to canteen employees as per the Central Pay Commission. This resulted in an industrial dispute being raised by the representative union of canteen workers which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore for adjudication (CR NO79/2000). By this time, the Management of NMPT discontinued payment of wages to canteen employees as per the Central Pay Commission. It is after adjudicating the dispute, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the canteens at NMPT cannot be termed as Departmental Canteens and that therefore, the Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, in March 1997 related to Departmental Canteens only and it was not applicable to NMPT canteens. Thus, it may please be seen that what was decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the above industrial dispute fell in a very narrow compass, i.e., whether the Notification of Mar 1997 was applicable to the canteen workers in NMPT. Hence, the claim of the workers to be treated as workers of NMPT as they have been working in a statutory canteen for a very long time is alive for conciliation/adjudication. Hence this Petition has been filed. The Petitioner submits that NMPT has a statutory obligation to run and maintain canteens as a welfare measure to its employees. The Wharf Canteen is one such canteen run and maintained by NMPT. The control and supervision of canteen and canteen staff rests with the NMPT Management. However, the Management created an artificial intermediary, i.e Cooperative Society which was operating the canteens. The canteen workers have been deprived of the benefits of wages paid to NMPT workers, although the Wharf canteen is part and parcel of NMPT. The canteen workers are deprived of all other benefits which are applicable to workers of NMPT. The service particulars of Wharf canteen workers are given in the ANNEXURE. In the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner Union urges upon your Authority to consider it as an industrial dispute seeking a declaration that the workers in the Annexure are in fact and indeed workers of NMPT and are entitled to all benefits as are applicable to permanent workers of NMPT and call upon the Management of NMPT to accede to the reasonable prayer. We seek your Authority's kind intervention and conciliation in the matter. However, if no settlement could be reached, the Petitioner requests your Authority to refer the dispute for adjudication by the competent Labour Court, in the interest of fair play and justice. We seek your Authority's kind intervention and conciliation in the matter. However, if no settlement could be reached, the Petitioner requests your Authority to refer the dispute for adjudication by the competent Labour Court, in the interest of fair play and justice. Thanking You. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Vinaya Prakash Ashirvad) General Secretary.” (Emphasis added) The conciliation fails. Failure of conciliation is referred for adjudication before the Tribunal. It is then numbered as C.R.No.30 of 2016. The claim of the Union before the Tribunal is as follows: “WHEREFORE, the I party/Union most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Award: a) To hold and declare that the employees involved in this reference as listed in the Annexure are all workmen of the II Party/Management and are entitled to be absorbed in their services from the date of their joining the services of the II Party/Management, b) To hold that the creation of Society to run the industrial canteen is sham & bogus arrangement, c) To direct the II Party/Management to absorb the workmen involved in this dispute in their services from the date of their joining the services and grant them appropriate scale of pay and extend all other benefits equivalent to those provided in the regular workmen arising out of settlement, Award etc. d) To pass any other order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” (Emphasis added) The Union sought declaration that 22 workmen should be absorbed. Written statement was filed by the Trust and the matter is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. When things stood thus, a tender notification comes to be issued on 26.04.2021 for the following purpose: “TITLE TENDER FOR “ PROVIDING CANTEEN/MESS OF SERVICES AT WHARF CAFETERIA, NMPT, WORK PANAMBUR, MANGALORE, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (02) YEARS .” It was for providing canteen service at Wharf cafeteria for a period of two years. It is not in dispute that members of the Union who are 22 in number are working in the canteen and helping running of the canteen, not today but right from 1986 and continued to work even today. It is at that juncture, the Union approaches this Court and this Court has passed slew of orders. The orders which are germane are quoted supra. It is at that juncture, the Union approaches this Court and this Court has passed slew of orders. The orders which are germane are quoted supra. The services of members of the petitioner/Union were protected by way of interim order, which is in subsistence even today. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the employees under the Society are not under the control of the Trust. They are not the employees of the Trust. They are employees of the Society. There is no master-servant or employer- employee relationship between members of petitioner / Union and the Trust. He would therefore, contend that if the Trust is wanting to issue a tender notification, it is un-understandable as to how the employees of the Society would be aggrieved. The submission is belied by various documents placed on record by the petitioner or even the respondent. The Society as averred in the petition is created specifically for running the canteen. It is a canteen society. The employees, 22 in number or others were all employees of the canteen. Though the salaries were paid through the Society, the amount is deposited by the Trust into the account of the Society and the Society disbursed the salary on such deposit. This is an admitted fact and the payment of salary through the Society is accepted. One such mode of payment is as follows: “To, The Manager State Bank of India Panambur – 10. Sir, Sub: Salary of NMPT Wharf Canteen Workers Cheque enclosed – Regarding. **** Sub: Salary of NMPT Wharf Canteen Workers Cheque enclosed – Regarding. **** Hence, find herein a cheque bearing No.956111 dated 25-10-2023 of Rs.1,46,918/- (Rupees One Lakh forty six thousand nine hundred eighteen) towards the salary of 11 workers of New Mangalore Port Trust Wharf Co-operative Canteen for the month of February. The amount shown against each of the following workers may be, credited to them SB accounts having in your bank which is noticed below Sl. No. Name of the workers SB A/c Number Net Amount in Rupees Remarks 1. Sri. Vital Amin 10205661409 19992 Index Name Phone Number Value 2 Sri. Rukmaya 10205661432 14992 3 Sri. Sundara 10205661454 17001 4 Sri. Shivananda 34765487387 18890 5 Sri. Thimmappa B 10205661487 12001 6 Sri. Sankappa 10205661498 11436 7 Sri. Thimmappa M 10205661501 10112 8 Sri. Satish 10205661512 10112 9 Sri. Sri. Vital Amin 10205661409 19992 Index Name Phone Number Value 2 Sri. Rukmaya 10205661432 14992 3 Sri. Sundara 10205661454 17001 4 Sri. Shivananda 34765487387 18890 5 Sri. Thimmappa B 10205661487 12001 6 Sri. Sankappa 10205661498 11436 7 Sri. Thimmappa M 10205661501 10112 8 Sri. Satish 10205661512 10112 9 Sri. Jayarama Shetty 10205669703 9167 10 Sri. Shankara Suvarna 30547905448 10578 11 Sri Naveen Kumar 30330744622 12637 Total 1,46,918/- When things stood thus, it appears that proceedings were taken up by the Trust to wind up the Society through whom the salaries were being paid to the members of the Union. Certain communications to that effect are made by the Trust to the office of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The communications dated 02-05-2024 and 31-05-2024 read as follows: “No. 3/1/2020-21/PLA.2 Date:02.05.2024 To: Sri Shivalingayya.M, Senior Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Office of the Dy. Registrar, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore -575001 Sir, Sub: Disruption in the services of Wharf Canteen-Reg. **** This has reference to the Order of the Dy. Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Govt. of Karnataka, Mangalore dated 09.03.2021 assigning you as the Liquidator to take further necessary action for winding up of the inactive NMP Wharf Co-operative Canteen Society within 90 days. You were requested by NMPA to keep NMPA informed within a reasonable period about the closure of canteen to enable NMPA to take alternate measures for making canteen facility available uninterruptedly to the employees of the Port. As the canteen is entrusted with you as a Liquidator since March 2021, the Liquidator is responsible for ensuring proper functioning of the canteen as well as disbursal of wages to the workers if any engaged by the Society. It may be recalled that you vide your letter dtd. 03.11.2023 had informed NMPA that the winding up of the society appears to have been completed. It is to inform that, as reported by the Users, the employee Unions and Traffic department of NMPA the canteen was closed on many occasions without any notice thereby causing severe inconvenience to employees, users etc. resulting in adverse impact on the operations inside the Wharf and a reason for unrest among the workers inside the Wharf affecting the industrial harmony. resulting in adverse impact on the operations inside the Wharf and a reason for unrest among the workers inside the Wharf affecting the industrial harmony. As currently the canteen is not functioning, you are requested to handover the Canteen building along with the furniture's and utensils pertaining to NMPA at the earliest so as to make alternate arrangement to provide canteen facility to the employees working inside NMPA Wharf. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Secretary i/c.” (Emphasis added) “No.3/1/2020-21/PLA.2 Date:31.05.2024 To: Sri Shivalingayya.M, Senior Inspector, Co-operative Societies (& Winding Up Officer, NMP Wharf Canteen Co-operative Society, Panambur, Mangalore) Office of the Dy. Registrar, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.-575001 Sir. Sub: Closure of NMP Wharf Canteen due to liquidation.-Disruption of canteen facilities, affecting the statutory compliance -Reg. Ref: 1) Letter No Nil dtd. 03.11.2023 received in this office on 01.12.2023. 2) Letter No. 3/1/2020-21/PLA.2 Dt. 02.05.2024 of Secretary i/c., NMPA **** Please refer to the letters mentioned above and the correspondence on the subject. As you are aware the cafeteria/canteen facility is a statutory requirement and it has to be ensured the facilities are uninterrupted as the Port operations are 24/7. The said facility was handed over to the employee's society so as to ensure that there is proper monitoring of the quality and hygiene in the services. While so the said society went into liquidation and vide your letter 1st cited in the reference you have confirmed that the liquidation process is going to be completed soon. Though the final outcome is not yet communicated to NMPA, the cafeteria/canteen facility was closed and the employees as well as the staff of users were deprived of the essential service resulting in severe unrest. Though this office made a request through the letter 2 nd cited in the reference to enable NMPA make alternative arrangements to cater the essential requirement of the employees and users which is a statutory requirement there is no response till date. As NMPA has an obligation to provide the canteen/cafeteria facility in the operational area, there is every need to make alternate arrangement to provide canteen facility to the employees and other workers of the users working inside the NMPA Wharf. As NMPA has an obligation to provide the canteen/cafeteria facility in the operational area, there is every need to make alternate arrangement to provide canteen facility to the employees and other workers of the users working inside the NMPA Wharf. Though this office made a request through the letter 2nd cited in the reference to enable NMPA make alternative arrangements to cater the essential requirement of the employees and users which is a statutory requirement there is no response till date. As NMPA has an obligation to provide the canteen/cafeteria facility in the operational area, there is every need to make alternate arrangement to provide canteen facility to the employees and other workers of the users working inside the NMPA Wharf. NMPA is an organization coming under the essential services and proper canteen facility has to be provided to the employees working inside the Wharf at all times ensure uninterrupted operations apart from statutory compliance. It is therefore requested to immediately come forward to take over any of the assets of the society lying in the wharf canteen building within 7 days of receipt of this letter failing which, NMPA shall resume the possession and list out the inventory lying in the said premises under Panchanama in the presence of CISF and if any assets or belongings are found during the said process the same shall be sent to such place as informed by you. If any of such inventory or belongings are not claimed by you the same shall be disposed as per law and the applicable regulations. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Secretary.” (Emphasis added) A further communication is made to entrust running of the canteen for a period of six months to Canara Port Worker’s Union, another Union in the Trust. The communication reads as follows: “No.3/1/2024-25/WC/PLA.2 Date: 03.12.2024 To, The General Secretary, The Canara Port Worker's Union (INTUC) New Mangalore Port Authority Panambur-575010 Sir, Sub: Running of canteen inside the Administrative Building-Reg. Ref: Request letter No.19/10/2024 CPWU dtd.08.10.2024 of General Secretary, The Canara Port Worker's Union (INTUC). Approval of Competent Authority has been accorded to entrust the Wharf canteen to The Canara Port Worker's Union (INTUC) for running a vegetarian canteen for a period of six months with the menu and rates as currently applicable at the Administration Canteen from 03-12-2024 to 02-06-2025 or till finalization of the new contract whichever is earlier. Approval of Competent Authority has been accorded to entrust the Wharf canteen to The Canara Port Worker's Union (INTUC) for running a vegetarian canteen for a period of six months with the menu and rates as currently applicable at the Administration Canteen from 03-12-2024 to 02-06-2025 or till finalization of the new contract whichever is earlier. The Union shall ensure all the statutory compliances for running the canteen including Trade License, FSSAI Registration Certificate, ESI, PF etc. during the period of allotment. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 03/12/2024 (Vishalakshi) Dy. Secretary.” (Emphasis added) What would become discernible from the afore-quoted communications is that, members of the petitioner/Union were initially appointed through the Society to run the canteen. The Society is found inviable by the Trust and recommended for liquidation. The process of liquidation is on. Prior to all these, the petitioner/Union had raised a dispute before the Tribunal and the dispute is pending adjudication. The situation now is, rights of the members of the petitioner/Union are to be adjudicated before the Tribunal. Winding up proceedings are directed to wind up the Society. The tender notification is issued to run the canteen not through the Society but by the Trust itself. As a temporary measure another worker’s Union is entrusted the work to run the canteen. In this process, the fate of 22 workmen who are the members of the Union is left in limbo. Though vehement submission is made that there is no relationship between the Trust and the members of the petitioner/Union, the salaries are admittedly paid by the Trust to the Society and the Society to the members of the Union. Therefore, it was not a direct relationship but undoubtedly indirect relationship. In the light of the claim of the petitioner pending adjudication before the Tribunal, if any order would be passed with regard to their right to seek permanence or otherwise, it would frustrate the rights of both the claimants and the Trust before the Tribunal. Therefore, to resolve the quagmire, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trust to continue the services of the workmen, who are 22 in number, in the canteen that it is setting up, not through the Society but by the Trust itself, which will remain subject to the result of the decision that would be rendered by the Tribunal. Therefore, to resolve the quagmire, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trust to continue the services of the workmen, who are 22 in number, in the canteen that it is setting up, not through the Society but by the Trust itself, which will remain subject to the result of the decision that would be rendered by the Tribunal. Barring these 22 workmen, if the Trust wants to employ more workmen by way of tender or otherwise, it is always open to it to do so. The only concern is of 22 workmen who have been working right from 1986 that is close to three decades now, should not be left in the lurch. A direction to the Tribunal to dispose C.R.No.30 of 2016 also becomes imperative as the dispute is eight years old and the fate of 22 workmen who are before the Tribunal is inter alia dependent upon the orders that would be passed thereon. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned tender dated 26-04-2021 stands quashed. (iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent/New Mangalore Port Trust to employ workmen for running the canteen that it is seeking to commence. But, the Trust shall see that services of 22 workmen who are part of C.R.No.30 of 2016 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shall not be dispensed with, till adjudication is taken to its logical conclusion. (iv) Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court shall conclude C.R.No.30 of 2016 within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.