Partly allowed

Kerala Shipping Mill Workers' Union v. Kerala State Textile Corporation & Ors.

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017WP(C)/4143/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala confirmed and made absolute an interim order of 28.02.2011 in four writ petitions filed by a workers' union against the State Textile Corporation and related undertakings. The order mandates re-employment of voluntary retirees under the Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed and made absolute the interim order dated 28-02-2011, requiring re-employment of specified workers and allowing fresh appointments only thereafter.

Kerala Shipping Mill Workers' Union Vs Kerala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4143 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KERALA SPINNING MILL WORKERS' UNION (AITUC), REG.NO.119/70, KOMALAPURAM,, ALAPPUZHA-688 542, REP.BY ITS, SECRETARY D.PREMCHAND.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶11

KOCHAR ROAD, SASTSHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10.

¶12

2. KOMALAPURAM SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED (FORMERLY KERALA SPINNERS LIMITED),

¶13

KOMALAPURAM, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 542.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT, OF INDUSTRIES,

¶15

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.

¶16

R1,R2 BY ADVS. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY SMT.O.V.BINDU SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN SRI.NISHIL.P.S. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V. SHYLAJAN, SC KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD R1 BY SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR ,SC (B/O)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 4073/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 4143 of 2011 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

=========

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1	: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 7.3.2006.
EXT.P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2.3.2009.
EXT.P3	: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 7.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.9.2014 VIDE LETTER NO.19957/C3/13/TRADE FROM THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
EXT.P5	: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.9.2014 VIDE LETTER NO.26654/C3/14/TRADE FROM THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
EXT.P6	: COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.02.2011.
EXT.P7	: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 05.05.2015 HELD AT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
EXT.P8	: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23.05.2015.
EXT.P9	: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.07.2015.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.R2(A)	: TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION
	IN THE DAILIES DA	TED 19.02.2011.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DST

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J.

¶29

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

¶30

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2017

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

These writ petitions are being heard together and disposed of jointly by this judgment because they involve analogous issues and have asked for reliefs that are similar to each other. However, for the sake of convenience, I treat W.P.(C) No.4143 of 2011 as the lead case and all reference to parties and documents in this judgment would be as per the status available in the said W.P.(C).

¶33

I have heard Mr Manu Govind, Mr P.R. Raja and Mr P.C. Chacko the learned counsel for the various petitioners, Mr Shylajan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Textile Corporation and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala.

¶34

These writ petitions have been filed by the

¶35

W.P.(C) Nos. 4143, 4073, 11513 & 27104 of 2011

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

petitioners, who are either registered unions or workers of the erstwhile Kerala Spinners Limited, which had been wound up and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Spinners, Alappuzha (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking Act, 2010) (Act 4 of 2010) Ext.P3. This Act has been produced by the petitioner and has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P3. The petitioners rely on clauses 1 and 4 of Section 13 of the said Act, which read as under:

¶38

“13.Employment of certain employees to continue.-(1) Every person who is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), and has been immediately before the appointed day, employed in the sick textile undertaking shall become, on and from the appointed day, an employee of the State Textile Corporation with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to such sick textile undertaking had not been transferred to and vested in the State Textile Corporation and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment in the State Textile Corporation is duly terminated or

¶39

W.P.(C) Nos. 4143, 4073, 11513 & 27104 of 2011

¶40

-: 3 :-

¶41

until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the State Textile Corporation.

¶42

xxxxxxxx

¶43

(4) Where, under the terms of any contract of service or otherwise, any person whose services become terminated or whose services become transferred to the State Textile Corporation by reason of the provisions of this Act is entitled to any arrears of salary or wages or any payment for any leave not availed of or other payment, not being a payment by way of gratuity or pension, for any period prior to the date of declaration as a sick company by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) such person may, except to the extent such liability has been taken over by the State Government under section 5, enforce his claim against the owner of the sick textile undertaking but not against the State Government or the State Textile Corporation.”

¶44

The specific and singular assertion of the petitioners is that even though they were initially workers of the Kerala Spinning Limited and even though they were granted voluntary retirement from service by the said company on payment of certain benefits, they are entitled to be re-engaged under the provisions of

¶45

W.P.(C) Nos. 4143, 4073, 11513 & 27104 of 2011

¶46

-: 4 :-

¶47

clauses 1 and 4 of Section 13 of the Act extracted as above.

¶48

The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing

¶49

on behalf of Government of Kerala says that since all the workers of erstwhile Kerala Spinners had already obtained every legitimate benefit under an applicable Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Government's view is that they would be entitled for re-engagement as a matter of right. However, he says he does not wish to enter into a contest on this issue in view of the interim order issued by another learned Judge of this Court on 28^th February, 2011. The submission of the learned Special Government Pleader is extremely fair and reasonable, I must say. To comprehend the effect of his submission, the order that has been referred to by him namely, the interim order dated 28^th February, 2011 will require a full reading. I therefore extract it as under:

¶50

“Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos. 4143, 4073, 11513 & 27104 of 2011

¶52

-: 5 :-

¶53

Respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the interests of the workers of the erstwhile Kerala Spinners Limited, Komalapuram, will be protected and that they have been asked to submit applications setting out their qualifications and eligibility and that the last date stipulated for the purpose was 25.2.2011. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that Ext.R2(a) produced in W.P.(C) No.4073 of 2011 is only an eye wash and that the said notification has been issued only with a view to seek modification of the interim order without really meaning to re-employ the former employees of the erstwhile Kerala Spinners Limited, Komalapuram, who had taken voluntary retirement. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 pressed for modification of the interim order.

¶54

2. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side I am not satisfied that adequate grounds have been made out to modify the interim order. It is however clarified that neither the pendency of the writ petition nor the interim order passed in this writ petition will stand in the way of the respondents from re-employing persons who have taken voluntary retirement from service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Spinners, Alappuzha (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 2010 (Act 4 of 2010). In all other respects the interim order shall continue

¶55

W.P.(C) Nos. 4143, 4073, 11513 & 27104 of 2011

¶56

-: 6 :-

¶57

to operate. The respondents may move for variation of the order after complying with this direction.”

¶58

I see that the interim order extracted above

¶59

creates a fair amount of balance among the various claims of the rival parties in this case. The effect of the interim order is that the petitioners and other existing employees will be re-employed in terms of the

¶60

Act and that after such exercise is completed, M/s Komalapuram Spinning and Weaving Mills, who took over the Kerala Spinners under the Act will be entitled to appoint fresh hands in their service.

¶61

The above being recorded and said, I am certain that it will be better for the interests of all the parties that the disputes raised in this writ petition be given a expiration by way of amicable arrangement by enforcing and making the interim order referred to above absolutely. I am sure that by doing so, a reasonable determination will be obtained to the dialectical claims of the workers on one side that of the Government and

¶62

W.P.(C) Nos. 4143, 4073, 11513 & 27104 of 2011

¶63

-: 7 :-

¶64

the new undertaking on the other.

¶65

In such circumstances and for the reasons

¶66

stated above, I dispose of these writ petitions

¶67

confirming and making absolute the interim order of this Court dated 28^th February, 2011 extracted above.

¶68

These writ petitions are thus ordered.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶71

DST

¶72

//True copy//

¶73

P.A. To Judge

Kerala Shipping Mill Workers' Union v. Kerala State Textile Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Shipping Mill Workers' Union v. Kerala State Textile Corporation & Ors.

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

Anilkumar.P.v Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

The General Manager & Inspector of N.S.S.Schools Vs State of Kerala

Sony Issac Vs the Secretary to Government

The Manager, Kpes Higher Secondary School, Kayakkodi Vs Dr.Usha Titus

The Manager Vs State of Kerala

Manju Murukesh Vs Agali Grama Panchayat