Dismissed

The Convenor,Cochin Commercial Employees v. Labour Court,Kozhikode

Kerala HC20 May 2016WP(C)/1483/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

As a representative labour association, the petitioner challenged a Labour Court award that validated the management's transfer of its members from head office to factories, alleging a change in service conditions and procedural violations under the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court reviewed the Labour Court's reasoning and dismissed the writ petition, refusing to interfere with the award.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Convenor,Cochin Commercial Employees Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/30TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶4

WP(C).NO. 1483 OF 2006 (B)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

THE CONVENOR, THE COCHIN COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.492 OF 1946, 1/1681, AMARAVATHI ROAD, COCHIN-682 001.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

2. THE MANAGER,

¶11

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, THE COMMON WEALTH TRUST (INDIA) LIMITED,, NO.7/1135, SOUTH MANANCHIRA ROAD,, P.B.NO.5, CALICUT-673 001.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, COMTRUST STAFF ASSOCIATION,, 13/784, ANNIE HALT ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002.

¶13

4. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, MERCANTILE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, HOUSE NO.5/2183, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.FAZAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).NO. 1483 OF 2006 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 18.06.2005 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTED 12.03.2007 IN O.P.NO.25792 OF 2002 (U)

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

P A TO JUDGE

¶24

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.1483 of 2006

¶25

............................................................. Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner is a registered trade union of workers under the 2^nd respondent management. The facts in the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner had raised two industrial disputes namely, I.D.Nos.9/01 and 6/02 raising the dispute in relation to the transfer of staff members and clerks from the Head Office to the factories of the 2^nd respondent establishment. The case of the petitioner was essentially that by effecting the transfer of the employees from the Head Office to the factories, the respondent management had effectively changed the conditions of the employees and inasmuch as this was done without complying with the procedural formalities under the Industrial Disputes Act, the same could not be justified. By Ext.P1 award dated 18.06.005, the Labour Court, Kozhikode, upheld the action of the management in transferring the employees from the Head Office to the factories thereby rejecting the claim of the employees. The legality of Ext.P1 award is challenged in the writ petition.

¶28

-2-

¶29

W.P.(C). No.1483 of 2006

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent management.

¶31

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note from Ext.P1 award that on an analysis of the evidence that was adduced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the transfer of the employees from the Head Office to the factories was not done with a view to bring about any change in the service conditions of the employees, and further, the transfer was one that was necessitated in the exigency of service and inasmuch as there was no change in the condition of the service, the management could not be held to have violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act while effecting the said transfer. On a consideration of the reasoning of the Labour Court in Ext.P1 award, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶34

mns/20.05.16

¶35

W.P.(C). No.1483 of 2006

¶36

-3-

The Convenor,Cochin Commercial Employees v. Labour Court,Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Convenor,Cochin Commercial Employees v. Labour Court,Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.I.R.Wood Industries. Vs the Kerala State Electicity Board.

M/S. Capvest Management Services (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

C.T.John Vs Tahsildar,Kottayam

Administrator, Bi.Alphonsa Hospital Vs State of Kerala and Ohters

The Federal Bank Ltd. and Another Vs a.C.Chummar & Others

Dr. Jacob Varghese Vs the Chief Engineer Roads&Bridges, Tvm