M.V. Peethambaran Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8634 of 2009(T)


1. M.V. PEETHAMBARAN PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (IR)

3. TATA OILS, AMALGAMATED WITH HINDUSTAN

4. THE FACTORY MANAGER, TATA OIL MILS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/03/2009

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

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

                          W.P(C).No.8634 of 2009

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

                 Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009

                                J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is an employee of the 3rd respondent company. In

respect of change of his shift from the general shift to the third shift,

the petitioner filed a complaint, Ext.P4, before the 2nd respondent. The

petitioner submits that the transfer of shift of the petitioner amounts

to unfair labour practice as also humiliation to the petitioner. The

petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

“(a) issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or order calling for records
leading upto Ext.P5 and set aside the oral transfer/reversion of the
petitioner from general shift to 3rd shift (night shift) w.e.f.
17.11.2008 as void, illegal and malafide.

(b) issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider
Ext.P1 and P5 and pass appropriate order in the interest of justice
restoring the petitioner’s status and position in general shift;

(c) issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay
compensation for the mental agony and humiliation and injustice
sustained by the petitioner on account of the illegal
transfer/reversion of the petitioner from general shift to 3rd shift
(night shift);

(d) issue a writ of Mandamus or other writ or order or direction
directing the respondents to post the petitioner in general shift so
as to enable him to continue to carry on work of clerical nature
which he is discharge (sic) from 1984 onwards.”

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. I am of opinion that the 3rd respondent being a company in

which the Government does not own any share and they are not

exercising any public function, a writ petition under Article 226 of

2

Constitution of India would not lie. But, certainly Ext.P4 petition would

lie under the Industrial Disputes Act before the 2nd respondent and the

2nd respondent is bound to take appropriate steps to convene

conciliation conference as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act to

try to resolve the dispute between the petitioner on the one hand the

3rd respondent on the other by conciliation efforts. In the above

circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

2nd respondent to take appropriate proceedings on Ext.P4 filed by the

petitioner as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act and take

it to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                              P.A. to Judge