Dismissed

All India Bata Shop Employees Union v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC14 Oct 2009WP(C)/18368/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged transfers made during pendency of an industrial dispute adjudication. A division bench dismissed the writ petition without considering merits, directing petitioners to approach the Labour Court under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to file a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court.

All India Bata Shop Employees Union Vs State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 18368 of 2009(M)

¶6

-----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

------------------------

¶9

1. ALL INDIA BATA SHOP EMPLOYEE'S UNION, REG.NO.755, BATA SHOE STORE, M.A.ROAD, KANNUR-670 001, REP.BY ITS CHIEF ZONAL ORGANISER, KERALA COIMBATORE ZONE, P.C.JAYARAJ.

¶10

2. P.P.REGUNANDANAN, CO-OPTED MEMBER CUM EXECUTIVE MEMBER, ALL INDIA BATA SHOPE EMPLOYEE'S UNION, SALESMAN BATA SHOE STORE, BRODWAY, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

---------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BATA INDIA LTD. BATA HOUSE, 418/02, SECTOR 17, GURGAON, MERHIULI ROAD, GURGAEON.

¶17

4. BATA INDIA ILTD., RETAIL SOUTH, INDUSTRIAL 11ND SUBURB, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-22, REP.BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER.

Kss

..2/-

....2......

WPC.NO.18368/2009 M

¶22

5. DISTRICT MANAGER (NORTH), BATA INDIA LTD., BATA SHOE STORE, M.G.ROAD NORTH, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

R3,R4 & R5 BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.ANIL D. NAIR, MR.V.J.ANAND.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

There is no representation for the petitioners. This Writ Petition

¶27

is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶28

20/08/2009

¶29

Sd/- V.Giri, Judge

/True Copy/

P.S.to Judge

Kss

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P(C).No.18368 of 2009

¶36

==================

¶37

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2009

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The 1^st petitioner is a union of employees of the 4^th respondent management and the 2^nd petitioner is one of the employees of the 4^th respondent. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute in respect of their service conditions and monetary benefits, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, by Ext.P1 order of the Government. The petitioners complain that while that dispute is pending, the management is harassing the employees by transferring them from one place to another as is evident from Exts.P2 to P7. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed a compliant before the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶40

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ direction or order and direct the 2^nd respondent to dispose off Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 in accordance with law.

¶41

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus, direction or order restraining the 3^rd to 5^th respondents from transferring parties to the dispute pending adjudication under the Industrial Dispute.”

¶42

The counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submits that the

¶43

petitioners can complain only if there is change of conditions of service. According to the counsel, transfer is one of the conditions of service of the employees and, therefore, transfers effected, pending the dispute, will not amount to change of conditions of service so as to

¶44

¶45

take proceedings against the management. The management also got a case that in view of some prior settlement covering the issues reference of the dispuste itself is bad.

¶46

I do not think that I can consider the matter on merits and

¶47

pass any orders in respect of the complaint of the petitioners. The petitioners agree that the Labour Court is seized of the matter and the proceedings are going on in the Labour Court. In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioners lies in filing a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court in the I.D. pending, if they have a contention that pending disposal of any dispute any conditions of service of the workmen have been changed. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

sdk+

¶49

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶50

///True copy///

¶51

P.A. to Judge

All India Bata Shop Employees Union v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India Bata Shop Employees Union v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Achuthan Nair Vs State of Kerala

M.Sebastian Vs the Union of India

K.M.Sasidharan Vs Director of Technical Education

Bpl Mobile Cellular Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.)

Chief Electrical Inspector Vs Haseena

Ramakrishna Panicker Vs Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.