IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 256 of 2009(E)
1. R/PRASANNAN, SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE
3. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD, KOLLAM
4. M.SALIM, RETIRED JOINT LABOUR
For Petitioner :SRI.P.J.MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/01/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 256 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Secretary of the registered Trade Union.
According to the petitioner, their members are the workers of the
Contractors engaged by the 3rd respondent, a company, incorporated
under the Companies Act. Petitioner states that the 3rd respondent had
decided to enlist the contract workers and that 4th respondent was
appointed as a consultant for this purpose. It is stated that the norms
for such enlistment is being finalised and that at that stage, company is
going to make enlistment, without awaiting for the finalisation of the
norms.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
submits that though initially there was a proposal for enlistment of
contract workers, however complaints were received from various
quarters regarding irregularities committed by Union. It is stated that
coming to know of such irregularities, the Company decided to give
up the enlistment.
W.P.(C) No. 256/2009
2
In view of this submission as above, it can be seen that the
petitioners apprehension is misplaced. If there is no proposal for
enlistment, there is no question of directing the company to await for
finalisation of the norms for enlisting the contract workers.
Writ petition is therefore, closed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm