Disposed

Muhamma Coir Factory Workers Union v. Labour Commissioner

Kerala HC28 Jun 2016WP(C)/13702/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a bank notice for property sale and sought EPF Commissioner directions to secure worker dues. The Court closed the petition as EPF proceedings were already initiated, leaving recovery to be handled by the Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; the writ petition was closed on the submission that realization proceedings are already afoot.

Muhamma Coir Factory Workers Union Vs Labour… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13702 of 2010 (K)

¶6

PETITIONERS : -

¶7

MUHAMMA COIR FACTORY WORKERS UNION (CITU), MUHAMMA-688525, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.P.SURENDRAN.

¶8

COIR LABOUR UNION (INTUC), INTUC OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.V.C.ALOSIOUS.

¶9

MUHAMMA COIR FACTORY THOZHILALI UNION (AITUC), KANJIKUZHI, SL PURAM, PO-688523, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.M.D. SUDHAKARAN.

¶10

COIR MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), BMS OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI. P.B.PURUSHOTHAMAN.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

¶12

SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶13

RESPONDENTS : -

¶14

LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EPF ORGANIZATION, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

¶16

THE KONCHERRY COIR FACTORIES, MAYITHARA PO, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.K.S.SANJEEV, KONCHERRY HOUSE, MAYITHARA MARKET PO, CHERTHALA.

¶17

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, SBT BHVAN, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.

¶18

WP(C).No. 13702 of 2010 (K)

¶19

R2 BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE R4 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2016. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 13702 of 2010 (K)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF LOCKOUT NOTICE DATED 15.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3^rd RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF CONCILIATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT ON 30.3.09.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 26.3.2010 AS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF JOINT REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE LOCAL BRANCH OF THE 4^th RESPONDENT ON 8.4.2010.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.V. ASHA, J.

W.P.(c) No. 13702 of 2010

¶34

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The Trade Unions of Coir Factory workers have filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P3 notice issued by the Bank regarding sale of property for recovery of debt due to the Bank from the third respondent management of the factory. Simultaneously, they have sought directions to the second respondent Employees Provident Fund Commissioner to commute the benefits due to workers in the factory and to set apart the said amount from the sale proceeds of the immovable properties already mortgaged. They also prayed for a direction to the second respondent to proceed against the factory for realizing the arrears of contribution payable by them.

¶37

The case of the petitioners is that in case the factory,

¶38

as well as the properties are sold and the proceeds are appropriated without paying off dues to the workers, the workers will be put to very serious prejudice. It is stated that approximately a sum of Rs.5,35,21,376/- is due to the workers towards terminal benefits. The petitioners also point out that

¶39

W.P.(c) No. 13702 of 2010

¶40

¶41

the factory was closed down in 2009 and they approached the Labour Commissioner. Even though the Labour Commissioner had fixed a conciliation meeting on 08.04.2009, the concerned parties of the management did not participate in the conciliation meeting.

¶42

The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that a statement was filed in this writ petition, but no statement is available in the file. However, it is stated that the second respondent initiated steps for realizing the dues towards the provident fund dues. A sum of Rs.16,36,425/- along with 6% interest is due towards provident fund dues from the management and they are taking steps for realization of the same along with damages. It is also pointed out that even though some of the properties of the third respondent were put to sale, since the same is subject matter of litigation in several proceedings by one or other partners of third respondent, so far the recovery has not been effected.

¶43

In view of the submission made on behalf of the second respondent, that proceedings are already afoot for realization of the amount due towards the provident fund, it is not

¶44

W.P.(c) No. 13702 of 2010

¶45

¶46

necessary to issue any directions in this writ petition. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent that proceedings are afoot for realization of the said amount, the writ petition is closed. As and when the recovery is made, it is for the second respondent to see that the amount is paid to the workers.

¶47

P.V. ASHA, JUDGE

¶48

DMR/-

Muhamma Coir Factory Workers Union v. Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhamma Coir Factory Workers Union v. Labour Commissioner

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

Marykutty Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Dr.M.Baba Vs State of Kerala

K.Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala

Archana S.Vasudev Vs Tahsildar, Kunnathoor Taluk

Rosamma Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

M.Savithri Vs State Bank of Travancore