Kerala High Court
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs Government Of Kerala on 29 February, 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2018 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1940
OP.No. 33450 of 2000
--------------------
PETITIONER :
----------
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.,
ALUPURAM, KALAMASSERY
REPRESENTED BY ITS WORKS MANAGER C.G.JOLLY
BY ADVS.SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
3. GENERAL SECRETARY, ALUMINIUM FACTORY WORKERS
UNION (CITU), ALUPURAM, KALAMASSERY - 683104
4. THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
INDAL WORKERS ASSOCIATION (INTUC)
ALUPURAM, KALAMASSERY
5. GENERAL SECRETARY, INDAL EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION,
ALUPURAM, KALAMASSERY.
6. GENERAL SECRETARY,
ALUMINIUM COMPANY THOZHILALI UNION,
ALUPURAM, KALAMASSERY.
R4 BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SENIOR ADVOCATE
R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
bp
02/6/2018
OP.No. 33450 of 2000
----------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------
P1: COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER DATED 29/2/1996
P2: COPY OF ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 27/3/1996.
P3: COPY OF AWARD DATED 30/3/99
P4: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14/3/1983
P5: COPY OF NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE LABOUR
COMMISSIONER DATED 2/4/1997
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
02/6/2018
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.No.33450 of 2000
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner Management challenges an award in the Industrial Disputes Tribunal raised by the workmen in regard to lay off of the establishment. The dispute that was referred for adjudication was whether the action of the Management of Indian Aluminum Ltd. in having laid off their workers with effect from 28.2.1996 is justified. If so quantum of compensation to be entitled to the workers.
2. The Industrial Disputes Tribunal found that lay off was justifiable. It was owing to the fact of power cut in the establishment. However, taking note of the settlement between the Management and the union, the Labour Court made the following observations in the award:
b