IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 16935 of 2000(N)
1. GENERAL SECRETARY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/01/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
=======================
O.P. Nos.16935 of 2000(N) and 24348 of 2000(N)
=======================
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
O.P. No. 16935/2000 is filed by the union in ID No.22/96
before the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode. O.P. No.24348/2000 is
filed by the management in the same industrial dispute. Both are
challenging those parts of the award passed in the said ID, which
are respectively against them. The issue referred for adjudication
was:
“Whether the following 15 workers are eligible for permanency?
S/S (1) Sreenivasan.K. (2) Kuttinarayanan.M. (3)
Anilkumar.M.C. (4) Vinodkumar.C.T. (5) Sundaran.C. (6)
Bhaskaran.K.M. (7) Kesavan.T.P. (8) Appukuttan.P.A. (9)
Purushothaman.M.T. (10) Raveendran.K. (11) Kunjuraman.P.
(12) Rajan.C. (13) Ahammed Kabeer.P.M. (14) Ushadevi.P.T.
and (15) Sarojini.C.”
2. In the ID, the management raised the contention that
it is not an industry coming within the definition of industry in the
Industrial Disputes Act. They also challenged the competency of
the union to raise the dispute. The Tribunal after adjudication
decided that the management is an industry and that the union is
O.P. Nos.16935 of 2000(N)
and 24348 of 2000(N) -2-
competent to raise the dispute. Even before the adjudication of
the reference started by the Tribunal, the management had
already regularised services of worker numbers 1 to 11 with
effect from 16.10.1995 and 2.10.1996. The union did not press
the claim against the 12th workman. The Tribunal did not find it
necessary to interfere with the relief already granted by the
management to the first 11 workers. The Tribunal thereafter
considered the claim of the workers 13 to 15 and directed the
management to make the workers 13 to 15 permanent with
effect from 1.1.1999. In the course of discussion of the issues
involved in the industrial dispute, the Tribunal made an
observation to the effect that workers of the management
recruited temporarily should be made permanent at least after 5
years of continuous service.
3. The management is now challenging the award to the
extent it holds that the management is an industry and to the
extent that the Tribunal held that on completion of 5 years of
continuous service workers are eligible to be made permanent.
4. The union on the other hand submits that after finding
that they are eligible to be made permanent, the tribunal ought
O.P. Nos.16935 of 2000(N)
and 24348 of 2000(N) -3-
to have directed the management to make the workers
permanent on completion of 240 days of service with
retrospective effect or at least from the date of raising the
industrial dispute. They would point out that in Ext.P2 award in
respect of a similarly placed employee, the very same Tribunal
had adopted a different yardstick whereby the worker involved in
that industrial dispute was directed to be confirmed with effect
from the date from when the management made some regular
appointments after the workmen entered service as temporary
workmen. The contention of the union is that a uniform yardstick
ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal while directing the
management to make the workers permanent.
5. Regarding the Original Petition filed by the
management, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly
held that the management is an industry coming within the
definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, taking into account the
nature of the activities of the management. The direction that
after 5 years every temporary employee should be made
permanent also does not appear to be unreasonable, in view of
the fact that as item 10 of the Vth schedule of the Industrial
O.P. Nos.16935 of 2000(N)
and 24348 of 2000(N) -4-
Disputes Act, it is an unfair labour practice to employ workmen
as temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the
object of depriving them of the status and privileges of
permanent workmen. Regarding the contention raised by the
union also I am not satisfied that the Tribunal was unreasonable
in fixing the date of permanency. The Tribunal has adopted a
reasonable period for the same. From the award, I find that the
industrial dispute was referred by order dated 16.8.1996 and
the first 11 workers involved were made permanent from
16.10.1995 and 2.10.1996. In respect of the other workers also,
taking into account their dates of first appointment and the date
assigned by the Tribunal for being made permanent, I do not
find that the criterion adopted by the Tribunal is invalid. In the
above circumstances, I do not find any merit in O.P.
No.16935/2000 as also. Accordingly, both the original petitions
are dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE
jp