India Gateway Terminal Pvt.Ltd. v. Kitex Garments Limited & Others

Kerala HC17 Jun 2011WA/240/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court closed proceedings regarding a dispute over labour proposals between India Gateway Terminal Private Limited, Cochin Port Trust, and various workers unions. The court internalized an earlier interim order to satisfy legal formalities. The court explicitly left all substantive questions relating to disputes between the parties and unions open to the Regional Labou

What did the court decide?

Proceedings were closed to satisfy an earlier interim order; all substantive issues regarding disputes between parties and unions are left open.

India Gateway Terminal Pvt.Ltd. Vs Kitex… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WA.No. 240 of 2011() -----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3507/2011 Dated 09/02/2011 ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): NOT PARTY TO WP(C) NO.3507 OF 2011

¶7

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

¶8

INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PVT.LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, ICTT, VALLARPADAM SEZ, ERNAKULAM-682 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR.K.K.KRISHNADAS.

¶9

BY SRI.RAFIQUE A. DADA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MATHUR BAYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER,RESPONDENTS & ADDL.RESPONDENTS

¶11

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

¶12

1. KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED, P.B.NO.5, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA-683 562, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

2. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 501.

¶14

3. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 501.

¶15

4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.

¶16

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

6. COCHIN THURAMUGHA THOZHILALI UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

2/-

W.A.NO.240/2011

-2-

7. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,

¶22

COCHIN.

¶23

8. K.J.MAXI, GENERAL SECRETARY, CITU, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003.

¶24

9. R.REGHURAJ, GENERAL SECRETARY, BMS, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003.

¶25

10. M.JAMAL KUNJU, GENERAL SECRETARY,INTUC, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003.

¶26

11. B.HAMZA, GENERAL SECRETARY, CITU, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003.

¶27

12. SHAJI PUTHALATHU, GENERAL SECRETARY, INTUC, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003.

¶28

13. T.R.DEVAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, BKS, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003.

¶29

14. T.K.SHABUB, GENERAL SECRETARY, AITUC, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003.

¶30

15. CHARLES GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS, VENAD HOUSE, CONVENOR, CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF TRADE UNIONS, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN, ASG R5 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN R8 BY ADV.SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI R9 BY ADV.SRI.N.NAGARESH R11 BY ADV.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R13 BY ADV.SRI.SOORAJ T. ELENJICKAL R15 BY T.B.MINI

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 224 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

sts

¶33

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ.

¶34

W.A.Nos.224 & 240 of 2011 & W.P.(C)No.3507 & 3774 of 2011

¶35

---------------------------------------------------------------Dated this, the 17th day of June, 2011

¶36

Judgment

¶37

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶38

1. Read the order dated 7.6.2011. We had stated

¶39

therein , among other things, as follows:

¶40

“We, therefore, need to be told on

¶41

behalf of IGTPL as to whether their readiness to process the proposal submitted by CPT, as reflected in the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner, is their readiness to process the aforesaid proposal of CPT”.

¶42

2. Learned counsel for the IGTPL which is the appellant in W.A.Nos.224 & 240 of 2011 submits that IGTPL has expressed their readiness to process the proposal submitted

¶43

WA 224/2011 & con.cases

¶44

¶45

by CPT, as reflected in the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner and such readiness is to process the proposal of CPT as contained in Annexure A1. This relates to the categories of 'Gearman' and 'Foreman'. He also says that it needs to be clarified that the words 'contractor' and 'employer' in the 4^th column “remarks/proposal” against the heads 'Gearman' and 'Foreman' are interchangeable; thereby meaning that the contractor under IGTPL is none other than the entity which will be the employer for the purpose of those clauses.

¶46

Recording the aforesaid, we close the writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the earlier interim order which we make absolute hereby and further order that all other questions in relation to any dispute between the parties and the labour unions or workmen are left open. No party represented through counsel, has any objection to this course being adopted. We close these proceedings and it would be open to the Regional Labour Commissioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if any, that may be found

¶47

WA 224/2011 & con.cases 3

¶48

necessary.

¶49

Sd/Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge

¶50

Sd/S. S.Satheesachandran, Judge

¶51

cdp/-

¶52

//true copy//

¶53

P.S. to Judge.

India Gateway Terminal Pvt.Ltd. v. Kitex Garments Limited & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Gateway Terminal Pvt.Ltd. v. Kitex Garments Limited & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Vs Suresh

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Examiner, Local Fund Audit

Travnacore Devawom Board Vs the Deputy Examiner, Local Fund Audit

Aliyamma Isow Vs P.J.Joseph and Others

T.K.Ramachandran Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Local Fund Audit