Disposed

K.Bhadran v. Kerala State Financial Eterprises Ltd.

Kerala HC31 Oct 2012WP(C)/6137/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning the delayers in finalizing duties and pay scales for employees re-designated as Despatch Assistants, the Court disposed of the matter without imposing a specific timeline for resolution.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of without a fixed time limit for the respondents to finalize the proceedings regarding the duties and benefits of the petitioners.

K.Bhadran Vs Kerala State Financial Eterprises… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6137 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.BHADRAN, DESPATCH ASSISTANT, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED THIRUMALA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 006.

¶8

2. AJAYAKUMARAN A., DESPATCH ASSISTANT

¶9

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED PEROORKADA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 005.

¶10

3. JOY S., DESPATCH ASSISTANT THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED EVENING BRANCH, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 101.

¶11

4. JAYACHANDRAN D., DESPATCH ASSISTANT THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

¶13

SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ETERPRISES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-680 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-680 020.

¶17

3. THE CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-680 020.

¶18

R1-R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶19

SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.6137 of 2012

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 16.6.2010.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.286/2010/TD DATED 10.12.2010.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.4.2011.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 21.7.2011.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.2011.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶30

¶31

W.P. (C) No. 6137 of 2012

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The issue involved in this case is mainly with regard to

¶35

the duties and functions to be discharged by the 'Despatch Assistants'.

¶36

The petitioners were working as Peons in the respondent KSFE. In connection with service conditions of the workers, various demands came to be placed before the Management by the workers represented by Unions, which led to Ext. P1 Settlement dated 10.12.2010. As per Ext. P1, according to the petitioners, it was agreed to promote the petitioners as Despatch Assistants on completion of 13 years of service as Peon (instead of existing 20 years). This came to be ratified by the Government as per Ext. P2 Government Order dated 10.12.2010. The petitioners were given posting and promotion in tune with Exts. P1 and P2, vide Ext. P3. Despite the long lapse of time, the duties and functions of the

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 6137 of 2012

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

petitioners, who came to be posted as Despatch Assistants were not changed, which in turn was sought to be considered by filing Ext. P4 representation before the second respondent. It was also pointed out that the monetary benefits flowing

¶40

from Ext. P3 were also still to be disbursed. 3. In

¶41

response to Ext. P4 representation of the petitioners, Ext. P5 communication was issued by the Management, referring to the steps being taken to disburse the monetary benefits; however making it clear that there was no separate scale of pay to Despatch Assistants and that the duties and functions of Despatch Assistants will be discussed and finalized soon.

¶42

The petitioners have approached this Court in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in finalizing the proceedings as above.

¶43

The respondents have filed counter affidavit pointing out that the posting given to the petitioners was not by way of promotion but by way of 're-designation', though it is described as promotion in Ext. P3, which in fact has got only a limited meaning. It is also pointed out that the conditions of

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 6137 of 2012

¶45

: 3 :

¶46

service in the respondent KSFE are being fixed after negotiations with the Unions representing the workers and it was accordingly, that Ext. P1 settlement was entered into on 16.06.2010, which was approved by the Government on 10.12.2010. Till execution of Ext. P1, the Peons had to complete a minimum span of '20 years' to be re-designated as 'Despatch Assistants', which was brought down to '13 years', also providing some other benefits as well, with regard to the tenure of service for appropriate re-designation at different level. It was accordingly, that the petitioners came to be redesignated as 'Despatch Assistants' on completion of 13 years of service as Peon and around 100 employees came to be redesignated as Despatch Assistants. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that there is no separate scale of pay for Despatch Assistant and that they had to continue to discharge the same duties and functions until the same was varied after discussions and negotiations with the Unions and incorporated in the Settlement to be signed. The learned counsel for the Management submits that Ext. P3 appointment order has to

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 6137 of 2012

¶48

: 4 :

¶49

be read in the light of Ext. P1 Settlement and Clause 9 of the Settlement referring to 'promotional avenues' is consciously worded, by incorporating the term “re-designation”. It is also pointed out that Ext. P1 does not prescribe any change in duties on account of such re-designation, which was also conveyed to the petitioners by way of Ext. P5. Considering the various demands made by the Unions, negotiations are being pursued and appropriate decision will be taken within the shortest possible time. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that Ext. P1 settlement was for a period of 5 years and the tenure is already over by August 2012, which in turn will remain there till the new settlement comes to be in existence, in view of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Law.

¶50

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, for the purpose clarity as well, it is necessary to refer to the consequences resulted because of the re-designation and change in duties and functions if any, in this regard since the tenure of Ext. P1 settlement is already over and further

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 6137 of 2012

¶52

: 5 :

¶53

negotiations are going on between the management and the union. This aspect also requires to be clarified in the course of further proceedings when New Settlement is entered into, which in turn will help the management as well, to avoid unnecessary disputes and litigations. Earnest efforts shall be taken to have said proceedings to be finalized at the earliest. This Court consciously is not fixing any time limit, for the reason that the Unions with whom Ext. P1 Settlement is

¶54

entered into, are not made parties to this writ petition.

¶55

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶58

kmd

¶59

/True copy/