IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1302 of 2009()
1. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOAD EMPLOY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :08/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.Nos.1302 and 1313 of 2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 8th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
W.A.No.1302/09:
The second respondent in the Writ Petition is the
appellant. The first respondent is the writ petitioner. The said
respondent filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3
communication of the Government dated 17.2.2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following:-
The first respondent is a trade union of the workmen under
the appellant. As per Ext.P1 order, issued by the Government,
the workmen were entitled to get fitment benefit of Rs.250/-
and also weightage of Rs.250/-. Ext.P1 was issued based on
the motion made by the management for revision of wages for
the workmen. Subsequently, the Government approved wage
revision for the workmen on the motion of the appellant, as
per Ext.P2 order dated 27.5.2008. The said order provided for
payment of fitment benefit at the rate of 6% subject to a
W.A.Nos.1302 & 1313 of 2009
– 2 –
minimum of Rs.350/-. There was also a provision for payment
of weightage at the rate of one increment for four years service,
subject to a maximum of four increments. There arose a dispute
whether the workmen were entitled to get the fitment benefit as
well as weightage at the rate of Rs.250/- in terms of Ext.P1
Government Order. The Government clarified, as per Ext.P3,
that they are not entitled to get Rs.250/- on both the counts.
In other words, they are entitled to get only Rs.250/- instead of
Rs.500/-, which was paid earlier. The workmen feeling
aggrieved by Ext.P3, through their union, filed the Writ Petition
praying to quash Ext.P3. But, the learned Single Judge took the
view that their claim is a matter which should be taken up before
the forums provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. To
enable them to do that, the learned Single Judge granted stay
for six months of the recovery of the alleged excess amounts
paid to them. The judgment was rendered on 1.4.2009. The
period of stay granted for six months is already over. But, the
second respondent in the Writ Petition has preferred this appeal
stating that there is no dispute concerning the payment of
aforementioned benefits and therefore, the liberty given to the
W.A.Nos.1302 & 1313 of 2009
– 3 –
workmen to raise the industrial dispute is unsustainable. The
learned Senior Counsel, Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, submitted that
the Government have taken the decision in Ext.P3 after hearing
the representatives of the workmen and therefore, they have no
right to raise a dispute. So, the permission granted by the
learned Single Judge is unsustainable. The learned Senior
Government Pleader, Sri.Benny Gervasis, also supported the
appellant.
3. The Industrial Disputes Act is an Act designed for
investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. ‘Industrial
Dispute’ is defined under Section 2(k) as follows:
“Industrial Dispute means any dispute or
difference between employers and employers, or
between employers and workmen, or between
workmen and workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or terms of
employment or with the conditions of labour, of any
person.”
Going by the definition, any dispute concerning employment,
non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour,
can be the subject matter of an industrial dispute. There is no
privity of contract between the workmen and the Government.
W.A.Nos.1302 & 1313 of 2009
– 4 –
The management of the appellant Board may be bound by the
decision of the Government. But, the workmen are free to raise
the dispute that the payment made hitherto should be continued
and there should not be any recovery of benefits already paid.
We have no doubt that the said demand, if not accepted by the
management will give rise to an industrial dispute, which can be
raised before the forums provided under the Industrial Disputes
Act. So, the contention of the management is plainly
untenable. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
W.A.NO.1313 of 2009:
In view of the judgment in W.A.No.1302 of 2009, this
Writ Appeal is also dismissed.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
C.T. Ravikumar,
Judge.
DK.