Disposed

All Kerala Security Services Employees Association, Intuc v. the H.R.Manager, G4S - Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited

Kerala HC15 Dec 2016OP(LC)/19/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an order filed by a Union challenging the Labour Court's decision to decline summoning the respondent's Branch Manager for specific documents. The Court held that production via the Branch Manager was not necessary and granted the Management leeway to produce documents if available or file an affidavit if not, delegating final relevancy determination to the Labour Court.

What did the court decide?

OP(LC) No.19 of 2016 was disposed of. The Management may produce documents if available or file an affidavit if not.

All Kerala Security Services Employees… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

OP(LC).No. 19 of 2016 (O)

¶6

ID 58/2014 OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

ALL KERALA SECURITY SERVICES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INTUC, LABOUR PORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KALABHAVAN ROAD, KOCHI - 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH

¶10

SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

THE H.R.MANAGER, G4S - SECURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HOUSE NO.34/259, N.H.BYPASS, JAWAN ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶14

THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(LC).No. 19 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER WORKMAN IN I.D. 58 OF 2014 DATED 26.11.2014.

¶19

P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 194 OF 2015 IN ID 58/2014 DATED 09.11.2015.

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 194 OF 2015 DATED 23.08.2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶27

============================== OP(LC)No.19 of 2016 ============================== Dated this, the 15^th day of December, 2016.

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The Union has approached this Court aggrieved by an order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, declining petitioner's request to summon Branch Manager of respondentManagement, along with certain documents. The Labour Court found that it has no relevance for consideration. It is further noted that if petitioner required those documents, he is free to call the records from the hospital, Trichur, where he had undergone treatment. It appears that records are relating to the medical treatment of the petitioner. As seen from the petitioner's application, the petitioner only wants the production of documents through the Branch Manager. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary that the Branch Manager shall produce the document. It is open for the Management to produce those document if available with them. If the documents are not available, Management shall file an affidavit to that effect before the Labour Court. It is open for the Labour Court to

¶30

OP(LC)No.19 of 2016 : 2 :

¶31

decide about the relevancy of the documents at the time of

¶32

final consideration.

¶33

With the above observation, OP(LC) is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶36

¶37

[True copy]

¶38

P.A to Judge

All Kerala Security Services Employees Association, Intuc v. the H.R.Manager, G4S - Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Kerala Security Services Employees Association, Intuc v. the H.R.Manager, G4S - Secure Solutions (India) Private 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

M/S. Dentcare Dental Lab (Pvt) Ltd. Vs Mr. Mohammed Ismail.K.M

Shekharan P.A Vs Vincen M.Paul

Ramanika Jewellery Vs the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad

Smt.Geetha Narayanan Vs the Labour Court, Ernakulam

Josekutty John @ Jimmy Vs Arya

K.N.Raghavan Vs P.v.Vijayalakshmi