Disposed

All India BSNL Causal Workers Union (Intuc) v. the Divisional Engineer

Kerala HC1 Apr 2019WP(C)/3605/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (3rd respondent) to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner Union's registered complaint (Ext.P4) regarding illegal employment discontinuation. The court refrained from directly altering the terms of settlement and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to look into complaint Ext.P4 expeditiously and pass orders within four weeks.

All India BSNL Causal Workers Union (Intuc)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 3605 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ALL INDIA BSNL CAUSAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC) (REG. NO. 0512/1999 AND AFFILIATION NO. 12436), STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, PALA . P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.C. THOMAS.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER B.S.N.L. VIZHINJAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695 521.

¶11

2 THE REGIONAL LABOUR OFFICER (CENTRAL) RAMA NILAYAM, T.C. 25/3453, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) KAKKANAD P.O, COCHIN-682 030

¶13

4 THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER BSNL, BSNL BHAVAN, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC, BSNL SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE

¶15

ASGI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 3605 of 2019 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Sri.Kuruvila Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Joseph Rony Jose, the learned Central Government Counsel and Sri.Saji Varghese, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶20

The petitioner a Union of All India BSNL Casual Workers (INTUC) prays for a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 complaint in a proper manner and take necessary action as is expedient in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner prays for declaration that denial or discontinuation of employment to a member of petitioner-Union that is, Sri.Sunil Kumar.K.S. at the BSNL office at Vizhinjam with effect from 04.12.2018 as illegal and unconstitutional. While the above two prayers are pending, the petitioner prays for a direction against 1^st respondent to permit Sri.Sunil Kumar.K.S. to resume duty at the BSNL office, Vizhinjam forthwith.

¶21

The case of petitioner is that the action of respondents in ignoring Ext.P1 and assigning work to Sunil Kumar.K.S. at a place other than agreed under Ext.P1 is illegal and objectionable labour practice followed by the 1^st respondent. With much emphasis at the commander, the learned counsel for the petitioner a few submissions are made on

¶22

WP(C).No. 3605 of 2019 3

¶23

the merits of the prayers referred to above. It is necessary to advert to the complaint in Ext.P4 made by petitioner to 3^rd respondent. On Ext.P4

¶24

the grievance of petitioner is that in spite of receipt of Ext.P4 the 3^rd respondent is not moving with the matter. Therefore, the petitioner prays for appropriate reliefs in this behalf.

¶25

Sri.Joseph Rony Jose, the learned Central Government counsel appearing for 1^st respondent objects to the array of respondents in the writ petition. Elaborating the objection, it is stated that the 1^st respondent is not the employer of the workers, whose names, places of work etc are reflected in Ext.P1. The 1^st respondent through its counsel states that the individuals covered by Ext.P1 are contract workers. Unless and until the contractor is also impleaded as one of the respondents in the writ petition, none of the prayers could be effectively considered by this Court. The Counsel alternatively submits that through Ext.P4 any one of the grievances adverted to in the writ petition or inaction in implementing Ext.P1 is already brought to the notice of 3^rd respondent. This Court if considers that the grievance of the implementation of Ext.P1 is required to be considered the same could be only in the manner known to law and the 3^rd respondent can look into the matter provided 3^rd respondent hears all the proper and necessary parties in this behalf. The Counsel stoutly opposes

¶26

WP(C).No. 3605 of 2019 4

¶27

considering any of the prayers made by the petitioner.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for 3^rd respondent does not dispute receipt of Ext.P4, but unable to satisfactorily inform the court for the delay in disposing of a representation/complaint made as early as on 29.12.2018.

¶29

I have perused the record and noted the submissions of the counsel appearing for all the parties. At the outset this Court is constrained to observe that the writ prayers though look like prayer seeking enforcement of a statutory right or fundamental right, a close look at the Exhibits on which the petitioner relies on was to show that the prayer under Article 226 is substantially converted into one for execution of Ext.P1 or for a declaration on Ext.P4 complaint. This Court has difficulty in liberally exercising its jurisdiction to consider the writ prayers which are already exerted. This conclusion cannot also wind up the order for the 1^st respondent has not only moved the 4^th respondent through Ext.P4 but complaining inaction, files the instant writ petition. The said complaint more is in the nature of bringing the grievances of the petitioner to the notice of 3^rd respondent, on the failure of the parties to Ext.P1 in accepting or implementing the terms and conditions aggrieved under Ext.P1. When a complaint is brought to the notice of 3^rd respondent, it is in fitness of things, give required

¶30

WP(C).No. 3605 of 2019 5

¶31

sanctity to Ext.P1, 3^rd respondent actes in the matter within the four

¶32

corners of law. The inaction of 3^rd respondent certainly could have

¶33

been avoided by taking timely action in this behalf.

¶34

This Court directs the 3^rd respondent to look into the complaint (Ext.P4) as expeditiously as possible and pass orders and communicate to parties preferably within four weeks from today. Some attempt has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 1^st respondent to direct the 3^rd respondent to issue notice to all the concerned. This Court is refraining from laying the path on which the 3^rd respondent treads after the directions are issued by this Court. Needless to conclude, the 3^rd respondent disposes of Ext.P4 by issuing notice to all the signatories to Ext.P1.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 3605 of 2019 6

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PETITIONERUNION AND BSNL MANAGEMENT IN THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.8.16 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONERS COMPLAINT DATED 4.12.18 SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.1.19 ISSUED TO 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 29.12.18 COMMUNICATED TO 3RD RESPONDENT ON 4.1.19 BY SPEED POST. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.8(11)/2016/B6 DATED 19.12.2016 OF 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶45

//TRUE COPY// Sd/PA TO JUDGE

All India BSNL Causal Workers Union (Intuc) v. the Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India BSNL Causal Workers Union (Intuc) v. the Divisional Engineer

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

Sulaiman.U Vs B.G.Krishnan

Thiruvananthapuram District Cooperative Bank Ltd, Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. a. Geeripai, Vs Union of India

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union(Intuc), Vs the Sub Divisional Engineer

Continental India (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax