Allowed

The Research Director v. Labour Court

Kerala HC6 Nov 2015WP(C)/5553/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the State Labour Court. The court held that a dispute involving an establishment under the Central Government falls within the Central Government's jurisdiction, rendering the State Labour Court incompetent to pass the ex parte award.

What did the court decide?

The ex parte award passed by the Labour Court is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed.

The Research Director Vs Labour Court — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/15TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5553 of 2012 (T)

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN ID 19/2009 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

THE RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CENTERAL COFFEE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, COFFEE RESEARCH STATION, O.P. BELEHONNUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. LABOUR COURT, KANNUR 670 001.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER WAYANAD. KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673 122.

¶15

3. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, WAYANAD ESTATE LABOUR UNION (CITU). CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION, VYTHIRI 673 576.

¶16

.....2

¶17

-2-

¶18

ADDL.4. K.K.SHANIL AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.K.ACHUTHAN, RESIDING AT KAYALVAKKATHU VEEDU, PERUMTHATTA, CHUNDALE.P.O., WAYANAD-673 123.

¶19

ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/06/2012 IN IA NO.7505/2012.

¶20

R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.J. MICHAEL R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.,(C) NO.5553 OF 2012

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/11/2008 ADDRESSED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNION TO TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER.

¶26

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF A NOTICE OF CONCILIATION DATED 15/1/2009 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, WAYANAD.

¶27

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 18/8/2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REFERRING THE DISPUTE TO THE LABOUYR COURT, KANNUR.

¶28

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF the 1ST RESPONDENT LABOUR COURT IN ID.NO.19/2009 DATED 22/10/2010.

¶29

EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF AN ORDER DATED 24/7/2009 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REFERRING A DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNION FUNCTIONING IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND WORIKMEN ENGAGED AT A RESEARCH STATIN IN CHETTALI, TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE.

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

K. HARILAL, J.

W.P. (C) No.5553 of 2012

¶34

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2015

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is the Research Director of the Coffee Research Institute, Chickmagalur, which is set up by the Coffee Board, a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of the Coffee Act, 1942 and functioning under the authority of the Central Government. The Board has set up Research Station at Chundale in Wayanad District. The additional 4^th respondent was a temporary employee engaged in the said Station on compassionate ground, pursuant to the death of his father, a permanent Mazdoor in the said Station. When the petitioner stopped engaging the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent Union raised a dispute before the District

¶37

W.P. (C) No.5553 of 2012 -: 2 :-

¶38

Labour Officer, Wayanad, and on the failure of resolution of the dispute there, the matter was referred for adjudication by Ext.P3 order to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent passed an ex parte award against the petitioner by Ext.P4 order directing the petitioner to reinstate the 4^th respondent in service with full back wages from 18/11/2008 until reinstatement. This order is challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, in this writ petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly canvassed to point that the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, as the Coffee Board is constituted for the development of coffee industry under the control of the Central Government. A dispute between an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government is the Central Government and the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction

¶41

W.P. (C) No.5553 of 2012 -: 3 :-

¶42

to entertain a dispute between an employee and an establishment working under the supervision and control of the Central Government. So also, since the petitioner's establishment is constituted by the Central Government under the Central Act, the State Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising between the petitioner and its workman or refer the matter for adjudication.

¶43

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent advanced arguments to justify the authority of the 1^st respondent to pass the impugned order.

¶44

The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the 1^st respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the worker and the management of the petitioner's establishment, which is constituted and controlled by the Central Government. It is the case of the petitioner that the Coffee Board, being an establishment, constituted under the Coffee Act, 1942, and as a

¶45

W.P. (C) No.5553 of 2012 -: 4 :-

¶46

result, an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, the State Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising between the petitioner's establishment and its workmen or refer the matter for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. The “appropriate Government” in respect of an industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government is the Central Government as per Sec.2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Indisputably, the petitioner's establishment, the Coffee Board is constituted under the provisions of the Coffee Act, 1942 and functioning under the supervision and control of the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government is the competent authority to refer the industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and that court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the petitioner's establishment and the 4^th respondent.

¶47

W.P. (C) No.5553 of 2012

¶48

-: 5 :-

¶49

In the above view, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P4 award which was passed without jurisdiction and I do so. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of raising or referring the industrial dispute afresh in accordance with law.

¶50

This writ petition is allowed accordingly, with the above observations.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶53

Nan/

¶54

//true copy//

¶55

P.S. to Judge

The Research Director v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Research Director v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasarajan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs Co-Operative Academy of Professional Education

Kitco Ltd., M.G.Road, COCHIN-682016. Vs Sree Shankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady

Sabira Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Ponnuswamy Chettiyar Vs State of Kerala

Babu P.R. Vs the State of Kerala