Kerala High Court
Esic Hospital vs Regional Labour Commissioner ... on 14 January, 2020
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.35644 OF 2019(E)
PETITIONER/S:
ESIC HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL,
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, UDYOGAMANDAL
P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEDICAL
SUPERINTENDENT.
BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),
COCHIN AND CONCILIATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAM
SADAN, OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.
2 M/S. DETECTIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES,
NO.52/3160B, 2ND FLOOR, BYE PASS ROAD, VYTTILA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM - 682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER.
3 CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT WORKERS UNION (CITU)
REG.NO.138/69,
OFFICE OF CCW UNION (CITU), UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., KOCHI
- 683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
4 GENERAL WORKERS UNION (AITUC),
REG.NO.226/83, OFFICE OF GENERAL WORKERS UNION
(AITUC), ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL KOCHI - 683 501,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
5 UDYOGAMANDAL CONTRACT WORKERS CONGRESS REG.NO.211/75,
INTUC BHAVAN, MAJUMMEL P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI -
683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
6 ELOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA SWATHANTHRA CONTRACT WORKERS
UNION (STU) REG.NO.196/80,
OFFICE OF ELOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA SWATHANTHRA CONTRACT
WORKERS (STU), ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., KOCHI -
683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
WP(C).No.35644 OF 2019(E)
2
7 UDYOGAMANDAL CONTRACT WORKERS UNION (BMS),
REG.NO.278/79, MAZDOOR BHAVAN, ELOOR SOUTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL - 683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY.
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.JAYENDRAN KOCHOTH
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P VIJAYAKUMAR ASG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.35644 OF 2019(E)
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a secondary care hospital run by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The hospital caters to the medical needs of employees insured under the provisions of the ESI Act and their dependents, who are beneficiaries. The house keeping services of the hospital has been outsourced to the 2nd respondent agency after following a transparent tender process. The respondents 3 to 7 are trade unions, who claim to represent the workers engaged by the 2nd respondent to the hospital. While so, the 3rd respondent raised an industrial dispute alleging anti labour measures before the 1 st respondent. On its basis, a conciliation conference was held on 19.11.2019. While the conciliation proceedings were pending, the respondents 3 to 7 issued a notice of strike proposing to go on strike from 26.12.2019. According to the petitioner, since the 1 st respondent is in seisin of the matter, the proposal to go on strike would clearly be violative of Sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is urged that the hospital is discharging a public duty and if its functioning is obstructed, it would affect the interest of the public. They have thus approached this Court to declare that the respondents 3 to 7 have no authority to call for and hold the strike and for other directions.
2. Heard Smt.A.K.Preetha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel and T.T.Muhammad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7.
WP(C).No.35644 OF 2019(E) 4
3. Smt.A.K.Preeta, the learned counsel submitted that the proposed strike was on 26.12.2019 and this Court by order dated 24.12.2019 had ordered the respondents 3 to 7 to defer the strike proposed to be conducted by them. It is further submitted that now that conciliation proceedings are going on, the petitioner would be satisfied if there is a direction to the parties to appear before the 1 st respondent so that an effective conciliation proceedings can be carried out and an attempt can be made to resolve the dispute.
4. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to 1st respondent to conclude proceedings pending before the said officer as is evident from Exhibits P5 and P6, take the same to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
shg JUDGE
WP(C).No.35644 OF 2019(E)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24/9/2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/9/2019
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/10/2019
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/11/2019
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
IN RESPECT OF REF.NO.191, 192, 193, 194 &
195/2019/B1 DATED 19/11/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
IN RESPECT OF REF.NO.191, 192, 193,194 &
195/2019/B1 HELD ON 4/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2019
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2019
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2019
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2019
ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.