Disposed

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills v. Hindustan Univer Limited

Kerala HC2 Jun 2011WA/614/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an interim order interpreting a settlement clause in a transfer dispute, directing the single judge to decide the main writ petition uninfluenced by those observations while maintaining the stay.

What did the court decide?

Set aside observations regarding settlement clause; dispose of main writ petition uninfluenced by interim remarks; interim stay remains in force.

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills Vs Hindustan… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

WA.No. 614 of 2011() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6994/2011 Dated 07/04/2011 ....................

¶5

APPELLANT : IST RESPONDENT IN WPC

¶6

¶7

THE GENERAL SECRETARY, TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED, STAFF ASSOCIATION, TATAPURAM, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-682 018.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.D.P.RENU

¶9

RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC

¶10

¶11

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, TATAPURAM, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS FACTORY MANAGER, MR.R.JOHN GEORGE. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶12

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI,JJ.

¶14

W.A.No.614 of 2011 against W.P(C) No.6994 of 2011

¶15

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2011

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Basheer, J.

¶18

This appeal is directed against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.

¶19

The grievance of the appellant who is an employee under respondent No.1 is that the learned Single Judge has practically decided the entire issue that has cropped up in the writ petition, in which his employer has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on a dispute referred by the Government.

¶20

The issue referred to the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:

¶21

“Whether the transfer given to Sri. M.V. Peethambaran Pillai, A Grade Clerk of General Shift to 3^rd Shift with effect from 15.11.2008 by the Management of Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Cochin is unjustifiable or not? If not what relief he is entitled to get”?

¶22

The Tribunal answered the question in the affirmative and directed the Management to transfer the employee and post him in the General Shift within one month from the date of the award.

¶23

W.A.No.614 of 2011

¶24

¶25

When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed an elaborate order staying the operation and implementation of the impugned award for a period of three weeks.

¶26

Sri Dharmadan, learned senior counsel who appears for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has decided the entire lis at the interlocutory stage itself, thereby rendering the writ petition practically infructous.

¶27

However Sri.Nandakumar, learned counsel who appears for the Management submits that the learned Judge had dealt with clause 9 of Exhibit P1 Settlement rather elaborately only since the appellant insisted that the said clause precluded or prevented the Management from posting a clerical staff to any other shift in the Factory. He further submits that the learned Judge has expressed only a prima facie view. We do not propose to deal with that issue at this stage, since the writ petition is even now pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.

¶28

Undoubtedly there is some force in the contention raised by the appellant that the learned Single Judge has in effect decided the issue while trying to interpret the clause referred to above. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel, the conclusion made by the learned Judge will have its own impact on the final outcome of the writ petition. Therefore the

¶29

W.A.No.614 of 2011

¶30

¶31

apprehension of the appellant is wholly justifiable.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we are satisfied that the observations and conclusions made by learned Single Judge touching upon clause 9 in Exhibit P1 will have to be set aside. We do so.

¶33

However we hasten to add that we are not concurring with or accepting the interpretation that is sought to be given either by the learned senior counsel for the appellant or by the learned counsel for the Management. The learned single Judge may decide the case untrammeled or uninfluenced by any of the observations or conclusions made in the impugned order. The interim order of stay passed by the learned Single Judge shall, however remain in force.

¶34

With these directions the writ appeal is disposed of.

¶35

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶36

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶37

rkc

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills v. Hindustan Univer Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Secretary, Tata Oil Mills v. Hindustan Univer Limited

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

K.N.Ani Vs Robit M.Thomas

Sharafudeen and Another Vs the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insuran

Sumod Vs Sajimon and Another

Dakshayani K. Vs P.Kunhiraman

Sunny Vs P.K.Ayoob

B.Vijayaprasad Vs Anil