Disposed

M/S.National Textile Corporation (Mktg Divn.) v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

Kerala HC30 Mar 2015WP(C)/5722/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the closure of conciliation proceedings by the Labour Commissioner. It observed that since the Union's claim involved non-monetary elements, no applicability existed under Section 33C(2). The petition was disposed of directing the Union to make a fresh application for fresh conciliation under Section 10.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with an observation permitting the Union to make a fresh application for conciliation before the First Respondent.

M/S.National Textile Corporation (Mktg Divn.)… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937

¶5

W.P.(C).No.5722 of 2014 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

M/S.NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MKTG DIVN.) EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.187/80,

¶8

KOLLAM-681001 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, D.JOSE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAMSADAN,

¶12

OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.

¶13

M/S.NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED, RETAIL MARKETING DIVISION, 35-B, SOMASUNDARAM MILLS ROAD,

¶14

COIMBATORE-641 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶15

R1 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.N.NAGARESH. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON

¶16

SMT.JEENA JOSEPH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

WP(C).No.5722 of 2014 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08-06-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER UNION BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24-01-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶24

EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.08.2013.

¶25

EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.08.2013.

¶26

EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.10.2013.

¶27

EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF JOINT DISCUSSIONS HELD ON 06.11.2013.

¶28

vku/[ true copy ]

¶29

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶30

W.P(C) No.5722 of 2014-M

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2015

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is a Trade Union of the employees of the 2^nd respondent,who is aggrieved with the closure, of the conciliation proceedings, made by the 1^st respondent without referring the same for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for brevity “ID Act”].

¶35

The claim raised by the petitioner-Union was with respect to certain allowances which, according to them, they are entitled to. The 2^nd respondent appeared before the Conciliation Officer and disputed such claim. However, later on, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner-Union themselves submitted before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the 1^st respondent herein, that they would approach the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Specific reference is made to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the 1^st respondent, where it is stated that the request for closing the dispute was made by the Union itself on the ground that the claim made by them is on the basis of a

¶36

WP(C).No.5722 of 2014

¶37

¶38

settlement of 1986. In such circumstance, the closure of the dispute cannot be found fault with.

¶39

However, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶40

petitioner-Union fairly submits that it was a mistake on the part of

¶41

the Union and no claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act would lie, since the demand of the Union cannot merely be computed in terms of money and has to be considered as a full-fledged dispute. In such circumstance, it is evident that the Union proceeded on the wrong premise before the Conciliation Officer. The Union is permitted to make a fresh application before the 1^st respondent, in which event, the 1^st respondent shall issue notice to the 2^nd respondent and initiate conciliation proceedings. If conciliation cannot be brought out, then proceedings for reference under Section 10 of the ID Act would have to be followed.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation.

¶43

Sd/K. Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶44

vku/

¶45

[ true copy ]

M/S.National Textile Corporation (Mktg Divn.) v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.National Textile Corporation (Mktg Divn.) v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

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

Shiju Joseph Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Mustafa Vs Sulaiman

Ancy D'Silva Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Abdul Raoof Vs M.P. Ajith Kumar

A.Abdul Vaheed Vs Regl. Provident Fund Commissioner

Thrissur District Loading and Unloading Vs District Labour Officer & Ors.