IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27367 of 2010(U)
1. N.T.ABRAHAM(NOW WORKING AS SUPERVISOR,
... Petitioner
2. P.P.NISTHAR,NOW WORKING AS SUPERIVISOR,
3. K.J.SEBASTIAN,NOW WORKING AS
4. S.LEELAKUMARI,ACCOUNTANT,HEAD OFFICE,
5. VIJAYAMMA CHANDRA MOHAN,LAB ASSISTANT,
6. A.K.SEBASTIAN,NOW WORKING AS FACTORY
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,KOTTAYAM.
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER
For Petitioner :SRI.V.C.JAMES
For Respondent :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :10/11/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P(C)No.27367 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated 10th November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The Crumb Rubber Factory, Chenappady, Kanjirappally was
established and being run by the 4th respondent. According to the
petitioners, they were recruited and appointed by the 4th respondent and
hence, they are permanent staff of the 4th respondent and, not the
workers of the aforesaid factory. It is mainly seeking issuance of a writ
of certiorari to call for the records leading up to Ext.P8 and to quash
Ext.P1 and to declare that the petitioners are permanent staff members of
the fourth respondent in terms of the provisions under section 80 of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and are not workers of the Crumb
Rubber Factory and as such they alone could not be included in the
category `locked out workers’ leaving out other staff members as
similarly circumstanced, that this writ petition has been filed.
2. Evidently, the status claimed by the petitioners as
employees of the 4th respondent and disclaiming their status as its factory
workers did not find favour with the 4th respondent. Therefore, essentially
a dispute exists on the said issue. In fact, raising such a dispute the
petitioners have already approached the first respondent, the District
Labour Officer, Kottayam. Though the first respondent convened several
WP(C).No.27367/2010 2
conciliation meetings, no settlement could be arrived at in the matter.
The conciliation conference which was scheduled to be held on the last
occasion viz., on 18.10.2010 was to be adjourned on account of the
election to the Local Self Government Institutions.
2. The learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent
submitted that the fourth respondent is willing to participate in the
conciliation proceedings. Since the petitioners themselves have
approached the first respondent by raising a dispute, they are bound to
participate in the conciliation conference. In the said circumstances, this
writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to
convene a conciliation conference and notice therefor, shall be served on
the petitioners and also the 4th respondent sufficiently earlier, to explore
the possibility of settling the dispute. In case no settlement could be
arrived at within a period of two months, the first respondent shall file
failure report in accordance with the provisions under the Industrial
Disputes Act to enable the Government to look into the issue and to
decide whether the matter could be referred for adjudication.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge
TKS