Dismissed

Indian Rare Earths Employees Federation (Citu) v. the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment

Kerala HC2 Aug 2022WA/432/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal by labour unions against the Regional Labour Commissioner was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision rejecting the application to receive settlement benefits without executing a declaration, ruling that the rejection was within the Single Judge's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; liberty to mention the underlying Writ Petition (C) for early hearing granted.

Indian Rare Earths Employees Federation (Citu)… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 432 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 28071/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

1 INDIAN RARE EARTHS EMPLOYEES FEDERATION (CITU) UNION OFFICE,INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, CHAVARA,KOLLAM-691583. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY T.MANOHARAN.

¶11

2 KERALA MINERALS EMPLOYEES CONGRESS,(INTUC), UNION OFFICE,INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, CHAVARA,KOLLAM-691583.REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,MR.G.SETHUNATHAN PILLAI.

¶12

BY ADVS.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH/SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL SRI.PAUL C THOMAS/SHRI.BABU M. SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN SMT.DEVYANI/SRI.M.B.SOORI

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

2 THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL), OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL),RAMANILAYAM, T.C.25/3453.UPPALAM ROAD,TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶16

3 THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,ANUSHAKTI BHAVAN,CHATRAPATHI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG,MUMBAI-400001.

¶17

WA 432/21

¶18

-2-

¶19

4 IREL(INDIA)LIMITED,(FORMERLY INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED),REGISTERED OFFICE-PLOT NO.1207,VEER SARVARKAR MARG,NEAR SIDHIVINAYAK TEMPLE,PRABHADEVI,MUMBAI-400028, MAHARASHTRA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶20

5 CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, IREL(INDIA)LIMITED (FORMERLY INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED),REGISTERED OFFICE-PLOT NO.1207, VEER SARVARKAR MARG,NEAR SIDHIVINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI,MUMBAI400028,MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶21

6 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND HEAD, IREL(INDIA)LIMITED,CHAVARA,KOLLAM-691583.

¶22

7 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(HRM), IREL (INDIA)LIMITED,CHAVARA,KOLLAM-691583.

¶23

8 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(TS), IREL(INDIA)LIMITED,CHAVARA,KOLLLAM-691583.

¶24

BY ADVS.SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶25

SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

Sri.Jai Mohan for the respondents

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WA 432/21

¶30

-3-

¶31

S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.

W.A.No.432 of 2021

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 2^nd day of August 2022)

¶37

Basant Balaji J.,

¶38

This Writ Appeal is filed against the order in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.28071 of 2019. The said I.A. was filed by the appellants/ petitioners to direct respondent nos.5 to 8 to disburse the benefit of Ext.P7 settlement relating to other allowances to the members of the petitioner union without insisting for executing the declaration evidenced by Ext.P 8.

¶39

The case of the appellants is that during the

¶40

pendency of Ext.P2 settlement, the unions arrived at a settlement with respect to revision of other allowances and

¶41

payment of arrears. But the Management disbursed the

¶42

WA 432/21

¶43

-4-

¶44

same to workers who are ready to execute the declaration produced as Ext.P8. The Management is deliberately denying the settlement benefit derived out of Ext.P7 settlement on the ground that the declaration is not signed by the members of the unions.

¶45

The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, rejected the application as there is an alternate settlement available, if there is a failure to implement the settlement.

¶46

On going through the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that being an intra court appeal, there is no ground to interfere with the order as the learned Single Judge used his discretion to reject the

¶47

WA 432/21

¶48

-5-

¶49

application on valid grounds.

¶50

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶51

The appellant is granted liberty to mention for an early hearing of the Writ Petition, before the learned Single Judge, having the roaster to hear this Writ Petition.

¶52

¶53

S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE

¶54

¶55

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶56

dl/

Indian Rare Earths Employees Federation (Citu) v. the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Rare Earths Employees Federation (Citu) v. the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment

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

Bindu Premanandh Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Hotel Aida Vs State of Kerala

Dilip Pawar, Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant COMMISSIONER-1 Vs M/S Parison Foods (P) Ltd.

P.K. Manoharan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Solar Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala