The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that denied seniority to Lascars based on a valid settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that the settlement binding on all employees could not be lightly interfered with.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 991 of 2009 (R) --------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
COCHIN PORT EMPLOYEES SANGtH BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S):
1. COCHIN POST TRUST CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI 2. D.K. CHANDRAN, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 3. D.G. BIJU, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 4. K. PRADEEPKUMAR, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 5. ABDUL RAZAC, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 6. K.D. JACOB, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 7. A. GOPALAKRISHNAN, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 8. D. JOHN, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 9. C.J. NEPOLEAN, LASCAR, HARBOUR MASTER'S DIVISION,, D.C'S DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST. 10. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,, ERNAKULAM, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 16.
R,R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1: | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 15.9.1993 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2: | TRUE COPY OF HT EORDER OF THE DY. CONSERVATOR DT 28.3.1995 |
| EXT.P3: | TRUE COY OF the REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY D. SOMARAJAN |
| EXT.P4: | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY C. UNNIKRISHNAN |
| EXT.P5: | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY KKARTHIKEYAN |
| EXT.P6: DY. CONS |
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.12.1996 OF THE HARBOUR MASTER TO THE ERVATOR |
| EXT.P7: IN CONCI |
TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT 13.3.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGEMENT LIATION PROCEEDINGS |
| EXT.P8: | TRUE COPY OF the CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNION |
| EXT.P9: | TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT |
| EXT.P10: | TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THEPETITIONER UNION |
| EXT.P11: | TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT OF WWI |
| EXT.P12: | TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION CONTAINING CROSS EXAMINATION OF WWI |
| EXT.P13: | TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF MWI |
| EXT.P14: | TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT 25.01.2008 |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2016
The dispute raised before the appropriate Government
was with respect to the seniority of Lascars of Harbour Master's Division of Cochin Port Trust. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal which passed Ext.P14 award in I.D No. 27/2006. The award refused to
allow the claim of Lascars of Harbour Master's Division on the ground of a settlement having been arrived at under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short I.D Act).
were transferred from the Dredging Superintendent's Division to the Harbour Master's Division. The transfer was necessitated since
WPC.No.991/2009
: 2 :
a dredger owned by the Port Trust sank. For reason of that 11 employees of Dredging Division became surplus of which eight were Lascars. Those Lascars of the dredging devision were accommodated in the Harbour Master's Division. At the time of such accommodation, these persons were specifically accommodated as Juniors to the existing Lascars in the Harbour Master's division. A seniority list following the said principles was also published in the year 1994.
8 Lascars of the dredging division to be placed placed in the seniority; above the Lascars of the Harbour Master's Division. This was also in tune with the length of service of those persons who had been continuing in the Dredging Division earlier. The Lascars who were denied such seniority in the year 1996 were before the appropriate authority. The Harbour Master had also by Ext.P6 requested the Deputy Conservator to restore the seniority of the
WPC.No.991/2009
: 3 :
Lascars of the Harbour Master's Division which according to the workmen/petitioners herein was conceded to by the Deputy Conservator but never acted upon.
published showing the petitioners as Juniors when they took up the matter before the appropriate authority. A conciliation was called
for and the issue was settled with the modality Union (representative Union) under Section 18(3) of the I.D Act. Though the petitioners- individuals were not heard but however, a settlement under Section 18(3) is binding on all the employees whether they were individually heard or not. The settlement entered into between the Management and the Union if allowed to be interfered with lightly, then, the same would result in the break down of industrial peace. This is the principle on which the statute itself provides a binding nature for such settlements. The Labour Court rightly found that the settlement arrived at between the
WPC.No.991/2009
: 4 :
Management and the modality Union can not be interfered with.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said
order.
Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere with the Industrial Tribunal's award refusing seniority based on a settlement arrived at under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether a settlement entered into between the Management and the Union under Section 18(3) of the ID Act can be lightly interfered with.
Whether individuals who were not heard during the negotiations can challenge the binding nature of the settlement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
COCHIN PORT EMPLOYEES SANGH
COCHIN POST TRUST
D.K. CHANDRAN
D.G. BIJU
K. PRADEEPKUMAR
ABDUL RAZAC
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
