Partly allowed

M/S.Kerala Exser Security Services(P)Ltd v. General Manager(Mobile Services)Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2010WP(C)/8633/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner security agency sought revised wages from the respondent BSNL following a government order increasing minimum charges. The court disposed of the petition relying on a prior judgment (W.P.(C).No. 17196/2009) holding the employer liable to pay proportional increases.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent directed to revise payable amounts based on wage increase and pay additional dues to the petitioner within two months.

M/S.Kerala Exser Security Services(P)Ltd Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 8633 of 2007(C)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶8

M/S.KERALA EXSER SECURITY SERVICES PVT.LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COL.(RTD) N.NARAYANA PILLAI, 209D, PEECHIMPILLY BUILDINGS, PADAMUGAL, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 021.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

GENERAL MANAGER (MOBILE SERVICES), KERALA CIRCLE INDIAN MOBILE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM (IMPCS), BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., (BSNL), PULIMOODU, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶13

ASST.GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION), MOBILE SERVICES, IMPCS, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL), TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶14

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT:

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RE-SETTLEMENT (DGR), MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, N. DELHI

¶16

(ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.25.3.09 IN I.A.NO.4467/09)

¶17

ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC, BSNL FOR R1 & 2 SHRI.IBRAHIM KHAN, Assistant Solicitor General

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

W.P.(C).No. 8633/2007

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1. COPY	OF	THE	LETTER DTD.26.4.2001.
P2. COPY	OF	THE	JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 37374/2003.
P3. COPY	OF	THE	JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 9654/05.
P4. COPY	OF	THE	GUIDELINES REGARDING WAGE STRUCTURE.
P4A. COPY	OF	THE	LETTER DTD.28.3.06.
P5. COPY	OF	THE	LETTER DTD.12.1.05.
P6. COPY	OF	THE	PETITION DTD.18.11.05.
P6A. COPY	OF	THE	PETITION DTD.29.11.05.
P7. COPY	OF	THE	PETITION DTD.28.9.06.
P8. COPY	OF	THE	ORDER DTD.12.2.2007.
P9. COPY	OF	THE	ORDER DTD.12.2.07.
P10. COPY	OF	THE	LETTER DTD.20.2.07.
P11. COPY	OF	THE	ORDER DTD.13.1.07.
P12. COPY	OF	THE	PETITION DTD.5.3.07.
P12A. COPY	OF	THE	CHART.
P13 COPY	OF	THE	ORDER DTD.17.4.07.
P13A. COPY	OF	THE	ORDER DTD.18.10.07.
P13B COPY	OF	THE	ORDER DTD.26.3.08.
P14. COPY	OF	THE	LETTER DTD.7.6.08.
P14A. COPY	OF	THE	LETTER DTD.14.11.08.
P14B COPY	OF	THE	ORDER DTD.20.2.09.
P14C. COPY	OF	THE	LETTER DTD.27.2.09.
RESPONDENT	(S)	'EX	HIBITS:

¶23

R2A. COPY OF THE LETTER.

¶24

R2B. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT. R2C. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20.1.06. R2D. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.11.11.006. sdk+ ///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

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

W.P.(C).No.8633 of 2007

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2010

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Both parties in the writ petition agree that the issue involved in

¶33

this writ petition is covered by the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 17196/2009. The said judgment reads thus:

¶34

'The petitioner is a security agency engaged by the 3^rd respondent for security services, as per an agreement executed for that purpose. The Director General of Re-settlement revised the minimum charges and other allowances payable to security guards. According to the petitioner, consequently, the 3^rd respondent is liable to revise the amount payable to the petitioner under the agreement, corresponding to the minimum wages and allowances so fixed. The same is not being paid by respondents 3 to 6, is the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

¶35

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 5 & 6 to pay the revised wages and other allowances at the rates mentioned in Ext. P2 and as prayed for in Ext. P7 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court with interest at the rates of 18% for the delayed payment;

¶36

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pass orders on Ext. P7 in the light of Exts.P3, P5 & P6 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶37

The contention of the standing counsel for the BSNL is that amounts are being paid to the petitioner on the basis of an agreement already executed by the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 6 are bound to pay only amounts as per that agreement and even if any revision of wages is effected during the pendency of the agreement, respondents 3 to 6 are not liable to pay any additional amount to the petitioner.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the very same issue was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No. 18367/2009, wherein in identical circumstances, this Court has held that the respondents are liable to pay the additional amounts payable proportionate to the increase in wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made available to me a copy of that judgment. Although the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that the 3^rd

¶39

¶40

w.p.c.8633/07

¶41

respondent is proposing to challenge that judgment in appeal, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition following that judgment. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶42

The 3^rd respondent shall take appropriate steps to revise the amount payable to the petitioner as per Ext. P1 agreement based on the increase in wages and allowances sanctioned by the Director General of Re-settlement by Ext. P2 and take a decision as to the additional amounts payable to the petitioner consequent thereto. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Additional amounts due to the petitioner shall be paid accordingly without any delay.'

¶43

In view of the agreement of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of that judgment. Accordingly, if the petitioner has filed any claim in respect of the matter, the same shall be considered and disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in accordance with the said judgment.

Sd/-

sdk+

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

M/S.Kerala Exser Security Services(P)Ltd v. General Manager(Mobile Services)Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kerala Exser Security Services(P)Ltd v. General Manager(Mobile Services)Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambazhakan Vs the Deputy Ranger

P.K.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.v.Sundaran Vs P.Dhanesh Kumar and Another

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Nelliampathy Plantations Ltd.

Dr.Vijayalakshmi R Nair Vs Union of India