THE AIR CARGO COMPLEX WORKER'S UNION v. THE STATE OF KERALA & Ors.

Judgment

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOOD EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, T.C. 8/2440, P.T.P. NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., AIR CARGO COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS ACT), KOLLAM.

R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ABDUL SHUKOOR.M.A, R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN, R3 BY ADV. SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.31386/2001-J: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: EXT.P.2: EXT.P.3: EXT.P.4: EXT.P.5: EXT.P.6: EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ENTRY PASS ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE WORKERS OF THE PETITIONER UNION. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DTD. 01/09/95 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 12/01/92 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND R.2. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 26/08/1989 ISSUED BY THE R.2. ASSOCIATION. COPY OF ONE OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30/01/1992 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER UNION. COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.NO.14454/96 IN O.P.NO.8654/96 DTD. 10/06/96 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.8634/1996 DTD. 18/02/1997 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/05/1998, PASSED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/11/99 IN W.A. NO. 1809/97, O.P.9925/98 AND O.P.10288/1998, PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 08/09/1999 FILED BY THE R.3. IN O.P.10288/98 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 08/12/1999, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNION BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/06/2001 PASSED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 21/07/1995 IN O.P.NO.9833/1995 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 25/09/1995 IN O.P.NO.1473/1995-W OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/11/1995 IN W.A. NO. 1284/95 (O.PNO.14473/1995) BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. O.P.NO.31386/2001-J: EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 24571/H3/96/LBR, DTD. 26/07/97 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.R3.E: EXT.R3.F: COPY OF THE OBJECTION NO.KHL WA-12/97, DTD. 07/11/1997 BEFORE THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM, FILED BY THE PETITIONER. COPY OF THE OBJECTION NO.K.H.L.W.A. 12/97 DTD. 07/11/1997 BEFORE THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMR., KOLLAM, FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3.G: COPY OF THE LETTER REF. NO.16/98, DTD. 24/05/1998 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. B.P.RAY,J. -------------------------------------------------- O.P.No.31386 of 2001 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2012 JUDGMENT The prayers in this writ petition are as follows: “i) call for the records relating to issuance of Exhibit P-12 order by the 1st respondent and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction. ii)issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner Union to the 4th respondent Appellate Authority under the Head Load Workers Act for adjudication. iii)issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to reinstate the head load workers in the petitioner Union into their service as permanent regular workers with all back wages and benefits as directed in Exhibit P-8 order of the 4th respondent with immediate effect.”

2. As per Ext.P9 judgment in Writ Appeal No.1809 of 1997 and other connected cases, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “10. The contentions have been raised in O.P.No.9925 of 1998. We have already held that Ext.P4 has been passed without complying with the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Act and therefore, the said proceeding is liable to be quashed. Accordingly we quash Ext.P4 in O.P.No.15373 of 1997 and Ext.P6 in O.P.No.10288/1998 and Ext.P4 in O.P.No.9925 of 1998 and remit the matter to the Government to take a fresh decision on Ext.P2 representation strictly in accordance with Section 22 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act within two months from today. The Government may issue notice to all necessary parties and proceed further in accordance with law. It is open to all parties to this proceedings to file fresh representations to the Government in addition to the representations already filed.” O.P.No.31386 of 2001 -2-

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that that the matter will be referred to the appellate authority under Sub Section (1) (a) of Section 22 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. Therefore, they did not produce any material to show that they are registered workers under the union.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that since no material has been produced before the Government as directed by this Court, the Government, instead of referring the matter to the appellate authority, had decided the issue itself under Section 22 (1) (b) and rejected the claim of the petitioners since no material was produced by the petitioners to show that they are registered workers.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.A.X.Varghese submits that the petitioner will produce the materials to show that they are registered workers before the Government, if they have given an opportunity to do the same. Let the petitioners appear before the 1st respondent on 16-08-2012 with relevant O.P.No.31386 of 2001 -3- documents to show that they are registered workers either under 2nd respondent or under the 3rd respondent along with a copy of this judgment. If such materials were produced, the 1st respondent shall decide the issue itself or may refer the matter to the 4th respondent as contemplated under Sub Sections (b) and (a) of Section 22 of the Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to all concerned.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order, Ext.P12 is set aside. The 2nd and the 3rd respondent are also directed to be present on 16-08-2012 without any further notice. I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. B.P.RAY, JUDGE su/-