Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COCHIN LABOUR UNION,REPRESENTED BY ITS versus STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


COCHIN LABOUR UNION,REPRESENTED BY ITS v. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE - OP No. 442 of 2002(C) [2007] RD-KL 5174 (12 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 442 of 2002(C)

1. COCHIN LABOUR UNION,REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION (IM)

For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY

For Respondent :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :12/03/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

O.P.NO. 442 OF 2002

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF MARCH, 2007



JUDGMENT

A Union of workers of the 2nd respondent Company has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of the Government of Kerala whereby an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner in respect of their demand for regularisation of 27 employees in service was refused to be referred for adjudication. The workers in question were appointed temporarily for a period of 179 days. They raised a claim for regularisation of their service. The Government noticed that this Court in O.P.No.20042/98 issued a general direction to the Government to terminate the service of all temporary employees not only in the Government Service but also in the services of Public Sector undertakings, autonomous bodies and local bodies, Universities etc. The Government further relied on the fact that Pharmaceutical Corporation (IM) Kerala Ltd is one of the Companies included in the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation by Corporations and Companies) Rules 1971, as per which the appointments to the 2nd respondent is to be made through the Public Service Commission.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that it is O.P.442/02 2 settled law that the Government while considering as to whether an industrial dispute has to be referred for adjudication or not cannot go into merits of the case. The counsel also points out that in W.P. (C)No.23352/06 filed by the employees whose cause is espoused by the petitioner union had been considered by the Hon'ble High court in W.P.(c) No.23352/06. In that case, in the counter affidavit filed by the management , they had admitted that one set of employees similarly situated have already approached the Industrial Court and dispute is pending adjudication. In view of this original petition is pending, the court had disposed of that writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue this original petition. The petitioner would contend that in such circumstances Ext.P3 is discriminatory and liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as also the learned Government pleader would stoutly oppose the contentions of the petitioner. According to them the workers in question have no right to be regularised as they have been appointed for specific period of 179 days and further they would contend that they were only a worker trainees and not temporary as claimed by the petitioner Union. However the counsel for the 2nd respondent frankly admits that the posts of workers do not come within the purview of the Public Service Commission.

4. I need not go into all these issues in this original O.P.442/02 3 petition, in so far as W.P.(C)NO.23352/06 the 2nd respondent themselves have in their counter affidavit stated that one set of similarly situated employees have already got an identical dispute referred for adjudication, which is pending adjudication. When the Government has referred an identical dispute for adjudication, the refusal on the part of the Government to refer the case of the workers whose cause was espoused by the petitioner Union alone, would amount to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 is therefore liable to be quashed. I do so and direct the 1st respondent Government to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner Union for adjudication as contemplated under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd O.P.442/02 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.