IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20246 of 2009(A)
1. COCHIN REFINERY WORKERS ASSOCIATION,
... Petitioner
2. REFINERY EMPLOYEES UNION, REG.NO.
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
3. BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :24/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.19067, 20246,
& 20854 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Common issues arise for consideration in these
cases. Therefore, they have been heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Since there is a separate contention in
relation to the locus standi of the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.19067/09, I will deal with W.P.(C).No.20246/09, as
the leading case.
W.P.(C).No.20246/09
3. The petitioners are registered trade unions
representing workers of Cochin Refineries in various
departments, including fire and safety. On 27.11.2006
Ext.P1, a tripartite conciliation settlement was entered
into between Kochi Refineries and two trade unions,
then in existence fixing the strength of Fire Crew in the
Fire and Safety Department as 76. The man power was
to be deployed in fire station Nos.1 and 2. In Clause 1
W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases.
:: 2 ::
of the settlement it was agreed that man power is
meant for deployment in fire station No.1 as well as fire
station No.2 and to operate the additional pump
houses that may be put up. It seems that additional
pump houses were not put up, but the management
proceeded to shut down fire station No.2 as well. Fire
station crew was reduced from 76 to 64, after shutting
down fire station No.2. Ext.P2 shift schedule has been
published by the management. In Ext.P2 nothing is
stated about Fire Station No.2.
4. The petitioners contend that this exercise
was in violation of the terms of the settlement and
separate dispute has been raised as evidenced by
Exts.P3 and P4 complaints before the 2nd respondent
Joint Labour Commissioner.
5. No action has been forthcoming on Exts.P3
and P4 and hence the writ petition praying for the
following reliefs:
W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases.
:: 3 ::
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order
directing the 3rd respondent to
maintain Fire Station Nos.1 and 2 with
fire crew strength as 76 as provided
in Ext.P1 settlement.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order
directing respondents 1 and 2 or
initiate proceedings against the 3rd
respondent for offences under
Sections 29 and 31 of the ID Act for
having violated Ext.P1 settlement and
Section 9 A read with section 33(1)
(a) of the ID Act, 1947 and
c) Issue such other writ, order and
directions as are deemed fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Similar contentions have been raised in
W.P.(C)No.20854 and 19607/09.
7. It is now admitted that the Regional Joint
Labour Commissioner had occasion to consider the issue
and conciliation conference is pending on the same
issue. It seems that the conciliation proceedings are
afoot.
W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases.
:: 4 ::
8. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.19067/09 are concerned, there is a contention by
the management that the first petitioner therein is an
unrecognized one and would be competent only to
agitate individual cases, if at all and would not be
competent to take up general issues. Learned counsel
for the petitioners also contends that the action of the
management invites a penalty in terms of Sections 29
and 31 of the ID Act.
9. The management does not stand in way of
conciliation conference being convened or conciliation
proceedings finalized.
10. Much of the controversy is centered
around whether the reduction of the man power in the
Fire and Safety Department from 76 to 64 amounts to
change in the conditions of service within the meaning
of Section 33 of the ID Act read with the 4th schedule
and Section 9 A of the ID Act.
W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases.
:: 5 ::
11. I heard Mr.P.Ramakrishnan,
Mr.K.S.Madhusoodanan and Mr.D.Anil Kumar learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.K.Nandakumar,
learned counsel for respondents .
12. Mr.Madhusoodanan makes a reference to
items 10 and 11 in the 4th schedule of ID Act, which
refers to the reduction of man power deployed by the
management. According to him, therefore, reduction of
the number of staff in the Fire and Safety Department
from 76 to 64 is not only violation in terms of the
settlement but also amounts to violation of Section 9A
of the ID Act.
13. Mr.Nandakumar submits that it is a moot
question as to whether reduction of man power
amounts to change in the settlement. At any rate,
Section 33 of the ID Act provides that any complaint
regarding the alleged change in the conditions of service
would also be a subject matter of a conciliation or
W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases.
:: 6 ::
subject matter of adjudication, as the case may be, in
terms of Section 33A of the ID Act. I find force in this
submission.
14. In my view, the question as to whether
the reduction of the man power in the Fire and Safety
Department amounts to violation or change in the
conditions is also a matter that will have to be
considered by the conciliation officer and could
therefore, become an industrial dispute, if the
conciliation conference ends in failure. But there is no
reason why the conciliation proceedings should be
delayed indefinitely.
15. The question as to whether the action
taken by the management in reducing the man power
would amount to breach of the settlement and
therefore, would invite a penalty in terms of Sections 29
and 31 of the Act is also a matter that has to be decided
by the conciliation officer.
W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases.
:: 7 ::
16. In the result, the Regional Joint Labour
Commissioner shall proceed with the conciliation
conference arising from the dispute raised by the
petitioners and complete the same within two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
17. It is made clear that the conciliation officer
shall bear in mind the observations made in this
judgment and his report should refer to the contentions
raised by the unions and the management in this
regard.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge