Disposed

Alla India Bata Shop Employees Union v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2016WP(C)/1993/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging alleged failure to initiate proceedings against Bata India Ltd for holiday violations under labour laws. Court held petitioners should approach District Labour Officers for specific violations and disposed of petition, directing officers to act within two months of complaint.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; petition dismissed with direction to District Labour Officers to act within two months of receipt of complaints.

Alla India Bata Shop Employees Union Vs State… — 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 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1993 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ALL INDIA BATA SHOP EMPLOYEES' UNION, REG.NO.755, BATA SHOE STORE, M.A ROAD,

¶8

CANNANORE-670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ZONAL ORGANISER, KERALA COIMBATROE ZONE P.C.JAYARAJ.

¶9

2. P.P.RAGHUNANDAN, SALESMAN, BATA SHOE STORE, THALASSERY.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR & REHABILIATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

¶13

2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001

¶14

3. M/S.BATA INDIA LIMITED., 6 ASN BANERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. PIN-700 025

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶16

R3 BY ADVS.SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH

¶17

SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).NO.1993/2012

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WITHDRAWING THE EXEMPTION PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.06.2010
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR UNDER THE KERALA INDUSTRIES ESTABLISHMENTS(NATIONAL AND FESTIVAL HOLIDAYS) ACT
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.2.2011
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.09.2011
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 16.08.2010 PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER IST CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSISANT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DATED 2.9.2010
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,ERNAKULAM TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY A MEMBER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER REGARDING THE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.1.2012.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP ISSUED TO SHRI.PRATHEESH V.N. FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2012
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.10/2012 (LDIS) DATED 13/2/2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER 1ST CIRCLE, THALASSERY.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶29

=========================

¶30

W.P.(C).No.1993/2012

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

TThe petitioners have come up with this writ petition in

¶35

the year 2012 seeking following reliefs:

¶36

“i. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to initiate proceedings against the 3^rd respondent under Sections 5A(8) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1960.

¶37

ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to initiate proceedings against the 3^rd respondent under Section 29 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1960

¶38

iii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to take further action on Exhibit P9 representation in accordance with law, after hearing the parties concerned; and

¶39

W.P.(C).No.1993/2012

¶40

-:2:-

¶41

iv. be pleased to issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶42

The petitioners’ case is that the first petitioner is the union of employees working under M/s.Bata India Ltd., the third respondent herein. The second petitioner is one of the salesman. According to the petitioners, the employer is not following the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 and therefore, the employees are forced to work on holidays.

¶43

The learned counsel also points out to Ext.P1 proceedings of the Labour Commissioner wherein the exemption given to the employer, the third respondent was withdrawn and observed as follows:

¶44

“The Union can also bring to the notice of the labour Commissioner or the respective District labour Officers, any violations of the labour enactments in the establishments of Bata India Ltd., for which specific steps will be initiated from

¶45

W.P.(C).No.1993/2012

¶46

-:3:-

¶47

the Department to see the employer is complying the provisions of law.”

¶48

In the light of the above, Ext.P9 representation has been made before the second respondent to take action against the employer for functioning of the shoprooms during holidays.

¶49

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third

¶50

respondent, at para.7, it is stated as follows:

¶51

“7. It is submitted that the petitioners do not have a case that any of its member is compelled to work against the provisions of law or that any employee is denied of any statutory benefit and hence the petitioners have no cause of action to raise these issues here. It is submitted that there is no prohibition in the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National Festival Holidays) Act, against opening the shops on a holiday, and though the Act is not strictly applicable to individual shops, this respondent complies with the provisions in the Act and pay double wages and grant substituted holiday to the employees

¶52

W.P.(C).No.1993/2012

¶53

-:4:-

¶54

engaged on a national or festival holiday as provided under Section 5(2).”

¶55

In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated at para.4 as follows:

¶56

“4. The 2^nd respondent has made effective steps to implement the provisions under Section 3 of the Kerala Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays) Act. In Exhibit P9 dated 06.01.2012, the petitioner’s request has now become infructuous. In this respect, it is pointed out that the officers under 2^nd respondent can act under the provisions of the Act. Inspections of all Bata showrooms were done in the usual office hours by all Inspectors of Labour Department. It is submitted that appropriate actions are being initiated by the officers under the 2^nd respondent, which is done as part of their routine inspection to check whether there is any violation of statutory provisions under Kerala Industrial Establishment (National & Festival Holidays) Act and Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The officer under 2^nd respondent has initiated

¶57

W.P.(C).No.1993/2012

¶58

-:5:-

¶59

necessary actions against the 3^rd respondent on violation of the provisions of Section 5A and Section 11 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. There are no laches or negligence in taking action against 3^rd respondent on the part of the 2^nd respondent.”

¶60

In the light of the above, this court is of the view

¶61

that if there is any specific instance of violation, the petitioners are free to take up before the District labour Officer. If such a complaint is filed, the District Labour Officer shall take appropriate decision without any delay, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the complaint. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶64

Alla India Bata Shop Employees Union v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alla India Bata Shop Employees Union v. State of Kerala

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

Ernakulam Merchants Association Vs Marapandian

P.Vijayakumaran Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu B. Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Joseph Benedict Benny Vs Beegam Thahira

The Public Information Officer Vs Joseph Benedict Benny

Muthoot Cine Enterprises Vs L.Sathi