Dismissed

Lissie Hospital, v. Labour Court, Ernakulam

Kerala HC9 Dec 2020WP(C)/7103/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala in a writ petition dismissed the employer's challenge to an interim Labour Court order. The employer argued the reference to the Labour Court was invalid due to the trade union's unfilings and subsequent cancellation. The Court held that the registration remained valid during the dispute referral and allowed impleadment under the ID Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the interim order of the Labour Court was dismissed with no direction to quash the impugned order.

Lissie Hospital, Vs Labour Court, Ernakulam — Labour and Industrial Disputes | 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 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LISSIE HOSPITAL,

¶8

P.B. NO. 3053, COCHIN 682 08, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018

¶12

2 LISIE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (LISIE UNION) REG. NO. 07.37-94, INFANT JESUS BUILDING, OPPOSITE HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-18

¶13

3 ANIL J AGED 49, S/O. JANARDHANAN (LATE), ANIL BHAVANAM, PANAYIL P.O, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 504

¶14

4 MICHAEL C.C. AGE 49, S/O. CHOURO C.O, CHACKALAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD WEST P.O, COCHIN-682 030

¶15

5 SIJU JOSEPH

¶16

AGE 28, S/O. P.A. XAVIER, PULLIKKAPARAMBU, CHAMNY LANE, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017

¶17

6 GIBI PETER

¶18

AGE 39, S/O. K.J. PETER, 836/A, (60/295F), KARIVELYTHUNDIYIL 36, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017

¶19

7 RAJESH R. AGE 35, S/O. R. RAJU, MARANKOLLY HOUSE, NEAR PUTHENPURA COLONY, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD-670 645

¶20

8 AYYAPPANKUTTY M.K.

¶21

AGE 45, S/O. KONNAN, MATTAPPALLY, THAMARACHAL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM-683 562

¶22

9 PAVUNNI M.K. AGED 51, S/O. KOCHAPPU, MANIPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶23

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶24

¶25

MUTHRATHIKARA, PARAPOOKARA, THRISSUR-680 310

¶26

10 BIJU ANTONY

¶27

AGE 41, S/O. P.V. ANTONY, PANJIKKARAN HOUSE, NEAR INFANT JESUS PUBLIC SCHOOL, ALANGAD-683 511.

¶28

11 ANSON FERNANDEZ, AGE 40, S/O. ANTONY FERNANDEZ, MADAVANA HOUSE, NEAR BHARATH MATHA COLLEGE, TRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-682 021

¶29

12 BEENA VINCENT

¶30

AGED 45, S/O. GEORGE (LATE), SRABIKKAL HOUSE, ST. ANTONY'S ROAD, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, NJARAKAL, ERNAKULAM-682 505

¶31

13 SUNIL KUMAR M

¶32

S/O. MANIYAN, SFCK AMBANAAR, CHEMBANARUVI, MULLUMALA, KOLLAM-689 696

¶33

14 KAVIRAJ S AGE 29, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, LAKSHMIPARAMBU, CHERTHALA-688 539

¶34

15 RAJEEVAN C.R. AGE 41, S/O. LATE RAVINDRAN, CHERUPULLIL HOUSE, KUMBALAM (NORTH)-682 506

¶35

16 JINU VARGHESE

¶36

AGE 35, S/O. K.A. VARGHESE, KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, NAVARASHMI NAGAR, EDATHALA, ALUVA-683 561

¶37

17 MANIKANDAN C. AGED 35, S/O. CHAMU S. MUDHALIAR THARA, THIRUVADY, PALAKKAD-678 687

¶38

18 PRABHATH C.S. AGE 41, S/O. C.K. SUKUMARAN, PRABATH BHAVAN, KUTTIPUZHA, KUNNUKARA-683 524

¶39

R2-18 BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE R2-18 BY ADV. SMT.A.SIRJI

¶40

SMT POOJA SURENDRAN

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶43

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Dated this the 9th day of December 2020

¶46

Employer – Lissie Hospital, ie, party No.2 to the Industrial

¶47

Disputes, No.8 of 2016, by this petition, is challenging the interim order dated 6/02/2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ernakulam, thereby rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the Employer regarding maintainability of the industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, apart from allowing the impleadment application filed by 17 workmen of the petitioner.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employer/party No.2 at sufficient length of time. The learned counsel argued that the appropriate Government ought not to have referred the alleged industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam as the first party to that dispute, namely Lissie Hospital Employees Union was defunct. The said trade union had not filed its return right from the year 1997 and as such was not competent to raise the industrial dispute. As the said Union had lost its capacity to raise industrial dispute way back in the year 1997, its

¶49

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶50

¶51

application dated 16/11/2015, Ext. P10 was of no consequence and as such, ought not to have been considered by the appropriate Government for referring the industrial dispute for adjudication. It is further argued that the employer/party No.1 had preferred an application under the Right To Information Act, so also the interim application for directing the party No.2 – Union for producing necessary documents. The Union had admitted in its affidavit that there was no dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the matter falls under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the workmen are seeking impleadment. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/employer, demonstrates that the industrial dispute cannot be validly entertained by the learned Labour Court and as such, preliminary objection of the employer ought to have been upheld by the learned Labour Court. My attention was drawn to the exhibits to the petition, so also the impugned order at Ext.P1 to demonstrate that the learned Labour Court erred in rejecting the preliminary objection and in allowing the application for impleadment filed by the workmen. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner – employer on the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶52

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶53

¶54

Allahabad High Court in the matter of Duncans Industries Limited. Kanpur Vs. Presiding Officer reported in 2010 LLR 403, Kerala State Co-operative Employees Front Vs. Chandramathi Amma reported in 1996 (1) KLT 540, so also on Fibre Foam (P) Ltd. Vs.

¶55

Kannan Nair reported in 1979 KLT 30.

¶56

I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶57

At the outset, it needs to mention that this Court is dealing with the matter falling under the Industrial Disputes Act and more particularly regarding reference of industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. Parameters for consideration in such matters by this Court are no longer res integra. It is now well settled that welfare statutes are required to be construed in favour of the subject for advancing remedy and for suppressing the mischief. This Court can interfere in this impugned order when such an order suffers from error on the point of law reflecting on record patently so as to warrant interference. This Court cannot act as a Court of appeal in dealing with challenge to the orders of the inferior Tribunal unless and until it is shown that such

¶58

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶59

¶60

order results in grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law requiring intervention.

¶61

In the case in hand, respondents No. 3 to 18 claimed that they were workers of Lissie Hospital, ie, the petitioner herein. It cannot be disputed that the 2^nd respondent Lissie Hospital Employees Union was the registered Trade Union operating in the field. The order at Ext.P7 passed on 02-06-2018 shows that registration of the 2^nd respondent Union stands cancelled. Thus cancellation of registration of the 2^nd respondent Union took place from 02/06/2018. The cause for the same was non-submission of yearly return after the year 1997. However, cancellation of registration operates prospectively from 02/06/2018 onwards. It cannot be retrospective and therefore, the acts committed by the 2^nd respondent Union prior to cancellation of its registration cannot be termed as illegal or invalid.

¶62

The 2^nd respondent Union while its registration was in vogue, made an application raising industrial dispute on 16/11/2015 (Ext.P10), which ultimately culminated in an order of reference of the industrial dispute dated 15/03/2016 (Ext.P11). This makes it clear that even when the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court,

¶63

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶64

¶65

Ernakulam by the appropriate Government on 15.03.2016, registration of the 2^nd respondent Union was subsisting. It was cancelled subsequently on 02.06.2010 vide order at Ext.P7. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reference of the Industrial Dispute at the instance of the appropriate Government to the Labour Court was bad at its inception. In the matter of Duncans Industries Ltd. Kanpur (supra) , there was objection to the reference of industrial dispute on the ground that Union was not holding membership of the concerned workers. Such is not the case at hand. It is not averred in the instant case that respondent No. 3 to 18 workmen were not the members of the 2^nd respondent Union. Hence the judgments so cited had no application to the case in hand.

¶66

It is seen that during pendency of the industrial dispute, respondent No.3 to 18 workmen had preferred an application for their impleadment as party to the industrial dispute regarding their dismissal. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court, Ernakulam was pleased to allow that application. The learned Labour Court had taken aid of Section 2A(2) for allowing the said application. Needless to mention that by incorporation of Section 2A(2) in the ID

¶67

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶68

¶69

Act, even an individual workman is permitted to raise his grievance in the matter of industrial dispute before the appropriate Court. The learned Labour Court while allowing the application for impleadment and rejecting the preliminary objection has held that the legislature intended to redress the grievances of individual workman in an industrial dispute notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 of the ID Act. It cannot be said that by such observation, the learned Labour Court has committed any illegality while interpreting the welfare statute. In the matter of Kerala State Employees Cooperative Front (supra) , this Court had observed that even there can be impleadment of parties to the industrial dispute in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the ID Act. Reliance on this citation by the learned Labour Court is certainly not misplaced.

¶70

In the matter of Fibre Foam (P) Ltd. (supra) , the question which was for consideration was whether any workmen is entitled to receive from the employer, any money or benefit. Provisions of Section 33C(2) was under consideration in that matter. Such is not the case in hand.

¶71

In the light of foregoing discussion, I am unable to find any

¶72

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶73

¶74

error of law committed by the learned Labour Court while passing the

¶75

impugned order nor it can be said that the impugned order has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.

¶76

In the result, the petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

A.M.BADAR

¶79

Nsd //true copy// PA to Judge

¶80

JUDGE

¶81

WP(C).No.7103 OF 2019(K)

¶82

¶83

APPENDIX

¶84

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶85

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 06.02.2019 IN ID NO. 8 OF 2016 BEFORE THE L.C. ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2	REMIND LETTER NO. B(3) 23395/2010 DATED 24.08.2011 ADDRESSED TO MICHAEL C.C.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT DATED 31.07.2015 BY DIRECTOR, LISSIE HOSPITAL EKM.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF REPLY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER NO. E4-9407/2015 DATED 19.08.2015.
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.04.2018 IN I.A 128/2017 IN ID NO. 8/2016
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.5.2018 IN IA NO. 128/2017 IN ID NO. 8/2016.
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF ORDER OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS NO. H/1841/16 DATED 02.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF I.A. NO. 119/2018 IN ID NO. 8/2016 DATED 15.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P8A	COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST PETITIONER , ANIL J IN ID 8/2016 DATED 15.10.2018
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF OBJECTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO. 119/2018 IN ID NO. 8/2016 DATED 17.12.2018
EXHIBIT P10	COPY OF COMPLAINT OF THE UNION DATED 16.11.2015 ADDRESSED TO DLO ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P11	COPY OF REFERENCE ORDER, G.O. (RT) NO. 432/2016/LBR DT. 15.03.2016
EXHIBIT P12	COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.10.2010 ISSUED TO SRI.ANIL.J
EXHIBIT P12(A)	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P12

Lissie Hospital, v. Labour Court, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lissie Hospital, v. Labour Court, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Venugopal P. R. Vs Manager/Authorised Officer

Dr. Abdul Rasheed @ a.R.Babu Vs Ifci Limited

Baby Manoharan Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organization

Ernakulam District Industrial Estate Mazdoor Sangh Vs the Union of India

M/S Turbo Intertrade Company India(P) Ltd. Vs Union of India

Bank of Baroda Vs State of Kerala