Disposed

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union(Intuc) v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner(Central

Kerala HC4 Aug 2015WP(C)/17507/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner to consider the petitioner union's representation and initiate urgent conciliation proceedings regarding contractor selection for BSNL works, if legally permissible, within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and initiate conciliation proceedings within 45 days if legally permissible.

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union(Intuc) Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/13TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 17507 of 2015 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

ALL INDIA BSNL CASUAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC), WITH OFFICE AT PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (REG.NO.0512/199 AND AFFILIATION NO.12436) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY P.C.THOMAS.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL), UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,

¶14

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BSNL BHAVAN, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BSNL BHAVAN, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

4. K.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN,

¶17

NADUVILEVEEDU, MUTHOOR POST, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, CGC R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC, BSNL BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rvs.

¶21

WP(C).No. 17507 of 2015 (K)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITION --------	ER(S)' -------	EXHIBITS : --------
EXHIBIT	P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY 2ND RESPPONDENT IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DATED 7.12.14.
EXHIBIT	P2:	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 9.1.15 FORWARDED TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3:	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 12.1.15 FORWARDED TO IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 22.5.12 AND ACCOMPANYING MINUTES DATED 23.12.11 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF WPC NO.2615/2012 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT	P5:	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 16.1.15 SUBMITTED IN THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P6:	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 18.5.15 FORWARDED TO IST RESPONDENT BY SPEED POST.
EXHIBIT	P6(A):	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT RECEIVED, WHILE SENDING EXT.P6 BY SPEED POST.
EXHIBIT	P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01/04/2015 OF 3RD RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO SRI.THILAKARAJ AZHIKAL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE BSNL WORKERS' UNION KANNUR DISTRICT, AZHIKAL P.O.
EXHIBIT	P8:	TRUE COPY OF BILL NO.II DATED 09/06/2015 ISSUED BY THE JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER OF BSNL TO CASUAL WORKER THILAKARAJ AZHIKAL EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.16092/- TOWARDS HIS WAGES FOR MAY 2015.
EXHIBIT	P9:	TRUE COPY OF BILL DATED 28/05/15 ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER OF BSNL TO CASUAL WORKER ANILKUMAR A.M. AT KANNUR TOWARDS PAYMENT OF 14170/- TOWARES HIS WAGES FOR MAY 2015.
RESPOND -------	ENT(S)' --------	EXHIBITS: --------
EXHIBIT	R2(A):	TRUE COPY OF EXHIBIT P2 DATED 30/12/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT	R2(B):	TRUE COPY OF EXHIBIT P3 DATED 09/01/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) ERNAKULAM.

¶24

WP(C).No. 17507 of 2015 (K)

¶25

EXHIBIT R2(C): TRUE COPY NO.1875/201	OF THE 3.	JUDGMENT O	F THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)
EXHIBIT R2(D): TRUE COPY 12/01/2015 TRIVANDRUM.	OF THE BEFORE	COMPLAINT THE DEPUTY	FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
EXHIBIT R2(E): TRUE COPY NO.2336/201	OF THE 5 DATED	JUDGMENT 07/04/2015	OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC .

¶26

/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE

¶27

RVS.

¶28

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶29

WPC No.17507 of 2015

¶30

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2015

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent to initiate urgent conciliation proceedings on Ext.P6 representation, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶33

According to the petitioner, the second respondent published Ext.P1 notification in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 7.12.2014 to select a contractor for executing the works of BSNL in Trivandrum District. The second respondent received tenders till 2.1.2015 and they were opened at 3 p.m. on the same day. The 4^th respondent was selected as the contractor. The second respondent has recently executed an agreement with the 4^th respondent for executing the BSNL works of Trivandrum District. The petitioner alleges that the second respondent should not have invited tenders for selecting a contractor considering the conditions and observations in Ext.P4

¶34

WPC No.17507/2015 2

¶35

statement and accompanying minutes.

¶36

The petitioner is a registered union of BSNL casual workers in Kerala State and is represented by its General Secretary. Most of its members are hailing from Thiruvananthapuram District. They are engaged by various Sub Divisional Engineers of BSNL in Thiruvananthapuram District to execute various repairing and maintenance works of BSNL. They were engaged as casual workers/petty contractors by BSNL for long time. The petitioner obtained information about Ext.P1 notification only during the first week of January 2015. Immediately, the petitioner sent Ext.P2 complaint to the second respondent requesting to stop selecting a contractor from the tenders received by him. But no action was taken on Ext.P2. Hence, the petitioner sent Ext.P3 registered complaint to the first respondent explaining the illegal and arbitrary acts of the second respondent and requesting to pass an urgent order of stay against the selection and engagement of a contractor by the second respondent for the BSNL works of

¶37

WPC No.17507/2015 3

¶38

Thiruvananthapuram District; it is alleged. However, the first respondent was not taking any action on Ext.P3. The petitioner was constrained to file WPC No.2336/2015 before this Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.4.2015 holding that the prayer sought in Ext.P3 is beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner sent Ext.P6 representation to the first respondent requesting to initiate conciliation proceedings, since the 4^th respondent is trying to engage works of his choice, denying job facility to many members petitioner-union. However, the first respondent is not taking action on Ext.P6. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ad the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

¶40

As the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the limited prayer for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and to initiate conciliation

¶41

WPC No.17507/2015 4

¶42

proceedings, if legally permissible and if the conciliation proceedings have not been initiated so far. This shall be done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

To facilitate an early action, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment as well as a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent.

¶44

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶45

css/ true copy

¶46

P.S.TO JUDGE

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union(Intuc) v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner(Central

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union(Intuc) v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner(Central

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

M/S. Shine Industries Vs the Secretary, Pallarimangalam Grama Panchayath

Jenson Maveettil Vs Kozhikode Corporation

Sreekumaran Nair Vs State of Kerala

P.Bharghavan Vs Dr.S.Bindu

Abdul Rasak Vs Nagalassery Grama Panchayth

Anjali K.V Vs State of Kerala