Alagappa Textiles Employees … vs The Labour Commissioner on 30 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24191 of 2004(E)


1. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES EMPLOYEES UNION
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES LABOURS CONGRESS
3. TEXTILES WORKERS UNION (AITUC)

                        Vs



1. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,

3. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS,

4. BHARATHEEYA MAZDOOR SANGU (B.M.S.)

5. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES WORKERS CONGRESS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :30/05/2008

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                    ==================

                     W.P.(C).No.24191 of 2004

                    ==================

              Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are unions of workmen of the 3rd respondent

management. They filed this writ petition seeking the following

reliefs:

“i) call for the records relating to Ext.P1 agreement and to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take
necessary steps to stall the reduction of DA to workers who
could not fulfill the targeted production.

ii) To declare that Ext.P1 agreement is not enforceable under law in
the 3rd respondent company.”

The reduction of D.A. to workers who could not fulfill the

targeted production is one of the terms of Ext.P1. The learned

counsel for the 3rd respondent with the help of Ext.R3(a) which is

a photo copy of the original settlement, contends that the

settlement was signed by the petitioner unions also and

therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the same. I am of

opinion that the contention of the 3rd respondent is well-founded.

In any event, if a union is aggrieved by a settlement, the remedy

lies in raising an industrial dispute as provided under the

w.p.c.24191/04 2

Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, by Ext.P3 petition, the 2nd

respondent has already invoked the jurisdiction of the District

Labour Officer, Thrissur, in the matter. Therefore, remedy of the

petitioners lies in pursuing Ext.P3. With the above observation,

this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

sdk+                                         S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE


             ///True copy///




                                  P.A. to Judge