Dismissed

Radhakrishnan M. v. the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kerala HC2 Dec 2020WP(C)/21928/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a labor commission order, the petitioners claimed entitlement to statutory benefits like gratuity and provident fund as employees of contractors engaged by BSNL. The Court found the petitioners were neither direct employees nor working through contractors of the respondents since no master-servant relationship existed, dismissing the writ petition accordingly.

What the court decided

AI extract

Radhakrishnan M. Vs the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21928 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RADHAKRISHNAN M.,AGED 48 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN NAMBIAR,'KARTHIKA',THOTTADA, KANNUR.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.D.S.THUSHARA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE), REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA CIRCLE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶12

3 THE GENERAL MANAGER,BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD, BSNL BHAVAN, KANNUR-670001.

¶13

4 DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL), KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682030.

¶14

5 BIJU.T.J, MANAGER,NA GROUP OF COMPANIES, BSNL INFRA MAINTENANCE DIVISION,B-STREET, MANANTHAVADI-670645.

¶15

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY R5 BY ADV. SHRI.MIDHUN R. R5 BY ADV. G.SANILKUMAR

¶16

SC,BSNL- SRI.T.SANJAY SRI. P VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.21928 OF 2020 2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 2nd day of December 2020

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for parties.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits

¶23

that petitioners are working with contractors, who are engaged by respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is argued that in the draft agreement prepared by the 5^th respondent, the benefits such as gratuity, Provident Fund, bonus, leave surrender and ESI contribution are not provided for. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this action on the part of the respondents is per se illegal and therefore, by a writ of mandamus they needs to be directed for providing statutory benefits to the employees of the contractors.

¶24

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, relying on the statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, submitted that both petitioners are not employed by any of the contractors, who are undertaking work with respondent Nos.1 to 3. Even the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the petitioners are not engaged by him for any work for BSNL.

¶25

WP(C).No.21928 OF 2020 3

¶26

It is thus clear that petitioners are neither direct employees of respondent Nos.1 to 3 nor they are working with those respondents through any contractor. As there is no relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and respondents, the petition cannot be entertained and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

ajt

WP(C).No.21928 OF 2020 4

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7-102020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE ASSOCIATION.(1ST PETITIONER HEREIN)DATED 09.10.2020

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE COMPELLED TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS AND NORMAL ROLL OF SUCH PERSONS

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1310-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 7-10-2020.

Radhakrishnan M. v. the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Radhakrishnan M. v. the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tinda Jinsan, Vs Union of India

Selvi @ Antoniammal Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs the Managing Director

Thomas M.A. Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala Hospital Employees Sangh, (Bms) Vs State of Kerala

Baby Manoharan Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organization