IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6698 of 2009(F)
1. COCHIN THURAMUGHA THOZHILALLI UNION
... Petitioner
2. COCHIN PORT & DOCK EMPLOYEES UNION
Vs
1. THE COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST,
3. THE TRAFFIC MANAGER, COCHIN PORT TRUST,
4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERINTENDENT
5. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER
6. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER &
7. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.MOHAMED YOUSEFF (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos.6698/2009-F &
6705/2009-G
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009.
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions have been filed at the instance of two
trade unions representing workers of the Cochin Port Trust. The
circumstances leading to the dispute are the following:
2. The first respondent is directly employing dock workers for the
dock work coming under the purview of the Dock Workers (Safety,
Health & Welfare) Act. Earlier the Dock Labour Board was exercising
its powers in regard to various aspects regarding the dock workers till
6.6.1994. Subsequently, the Dock Labour Board merged with the
Cochin Port Trust. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Settlement was
arrived at as per Ext.P1 dated 6.6.1994 between the management and
various labour unions at the instance of the 5th respondent Regional
Labour Commissioner who conciliated with the parties concerned. The
settlement contained various clauses like wage revision, conditions of
service of Port and Dock workers, etc. The said settlement expired on
31.12.1997 and thereafter the Government of India, Ministry of Surface
wpc 6698 &
6705/2009 2
Transport, constituted a bipartite Wage Negotiation Committee which
consisted of representatives of the management and representatives of
Port and Dock workers. Accordingly, a settlement was arrived at as per
Ext.P2 regarding the conditions of service, wage revision and retirement
benefits, etc. It is contended that clause 36 refers to existing benefits.
3. There are about 246 permanent workers included in the muster
roll of the composite gang and they are members of different trade
unions. The writ petitions concern challenge against Ext.P4 circular
dated 7.1.2009 issued by the second respondent introducing the Access
Control System for admitting the workers to certain sections in the
Cochin Port Trust including the Dock Labour Division as well. It is
pointed out that the trade unions opposed the proposal, especially the
linking of the Access Control System to the Pay Roll of the workers. In
fact, all the trade unions agreed to introduce Access Control System in
all other divisions or sections of the Cochin Port Trust. It is stated that
subsequent meetings were held and since no consensus was arrived at,
Exts.P5 and P6 representations were submitted to the Chairman. But
still, the management continued with the introduction of the system and
memos were issued to workers who violated the circular. Again, Ext.P8
circular was issued informing that it has been decided to strictly enforce
and regulate attendance through the swiping system from the first shift
wpc 6698 &
6705/2009 3
of 19.2.2009 and that the Access Control system will be linked with the
pay roll of the workers. This was objected to by the petitioners by
submitting further representations.
4. Since no settlement could be arrived at, the petitioners have
approached the Regional Labour Commissioner, the 5th respondent by
raising a dispute. Even though some conferences have been held, no
consensus could be arrived at. The petitioners have approached this court
contending that since the respondents are adopting a recalcitrant attitude
and as the workers are being threatened and as they apprehend police
action in the matter, this court’s interference is warranted.
5. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also. It is
pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that it is purely an industrial
dispute and as the matter is being considered by the Regional Joint
Labour Commissioner by convening conferences, at this stage the
petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs in these writ petitions.
6. The objection appears to be sustainable. The Conciliation Officer
is already in seisin of the matter. He has invoked his powers under the
relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, especially Section 11
of the Act. If the Conciliation conferences fail, then he will have to
submit a failure report and appropriate actions will follow as enjoined by
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Scheme under the
wpc 6698 &
6705/2009 4
Act provides for effective remedy which is not inadequate, I am of the
view that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India need not be exercised at this stage.
7. The main contentions raised by the petitioners relate to the
alleged violation of the settlement and the respective rights of various
workers represented by the trade unions to enforce the terms of the
settlement. The main reliefs sought for are also for a declaration
regarding the rights of those workers to enjoy certain benefits. In that
view of the matter also, it is purely under the realm of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Since the conciliation machinery has already been put into
motion, the writ petitions are premature.
Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the
right of the petitioners to pursue their remedies under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/