1.

Parties of the case:

o Appellant: Unnati Industrial Corporation (UIC)
o Respondent: The Union (representing canteen workers)
o Other parties: Bhola Prasad (contractor)

2. Index of Authorities:

• The Government of India

• Ministry of Corporate Affairs

• National Stock Exchange

• UIC Canteen and Management Committee

• Unnati Shiksha Kendra (educational institution)

• Industrial Tribunal

• High Court of Zafhisthan

• Divisional Bench of the High Court

• Hon’ble Supreme Court

3. List of Abbreviations:

o UIC: Unnati Industrial Corporation

o GST: Goods and Services Tax
o SLP: Special Leave Petition
4. Statement of Jurisdiction: The case has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Divisional Bench of
the High Court's decision.

5. Statement of Facts:
• UIC is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India.

• UIC runs a canteen named 'Unnati Complex' under a written understanding with
contractor Bhola Prasad.

• Bhola Prasad refuses to pay GST on canteen items due to decreased profit margin,
leading to the canteen's shutdown.

• Canteen workers went on a flash strike demanding resolution of the dispute and
better wages.

• UIC terminated the services of three workers, leading to a dispute taken to the
Industrial Tribunal.

• The Union raised points regarding payment of GST, permanent employment, and
discrimination in treatment of workers.

• The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement and permanent employment for the
terminated workers.

• The High Court's single judge bench upheld the Tribunal's award, which was later
challenged by UIC and reversed by the Divisional Bench.

6. Issues raised:

a) Liability of paying GST on canteen items.

 b) Status of canteen workers as UIC employees or contractor employees.

c) Entitlement of canteen workers to permanent employment.

d) Discrimination in the treatment of canteen workers.

7. Summary of Arguments: The Union argues for the workers' rights, including
payment of GST by UIC, permanent employment, and equal treatment. UIC
contends that the canteen workers are not its employees and are controlled by the
contractor. Thus, they should not be entitled to wages as per UIC norms or
permanent employment.

8. Arguments advanced:
➢ The Union argues that canteen workers are an integral part of UIC as the
canteen is an essential facility provided by UIC. They claim that the
termination of the workers is unjust and discriminatory, and they should be
reinstated and made permanent employees with wages similar to other Class
4 employees of UIC. The Union also contends that UIC must pay the GST to
ensure the canteen's smooth functioning.
➢ UIC argues that canteen workers are contractor employees and not directly
employed by UIC. As such, they are not entitled to UIC's wages or
permanent employment. UIC also claims that it only provides basic facilities
for the canteen's operation but does not substantially control or supervise the
workers.
9. Prayer: The Union prays for the reversal of the Divisional Bench's decision and
the reinstatement of the Industrial Tribunal's award, which includes payment of
GST by UIC, permanent employment for the terminated workers, and equal
treatment of canteen workers.
10.Conclusion:

The case involves a dispute between Unnati Industrial Corporation (UIC) and the
Union representing canteen workers. The key issues include the liability of paying
GST, the status of canteen workers as UIC employees or contractor employees,
their entitlement to permanent employment, and allegations of discrimination. The
Union has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
seeking a favorable resolution.