Kerala High Court
The Director vs Central Government Industrial ... on 29 July, 2022
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE CHAIRMAN,
INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION,
DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN,
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU-695022.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM CENTRE, VALIAMALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695547.
3 THE CONTROLLER,
LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM CENTRE,
VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695547.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
T.C.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.
2 THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
ISRO CAUSAL WORKERS UNION, KIZHAKKE BUNGALOW,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAURAM-695541.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SRI.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
SRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
SRI.THAYYIB SHA P.S.
SRI.SANKARANARAYANAN-ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8000/2020, 18734/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8000 OF 2020
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 - MANAGEMENT:
1 THE DIRECTOR, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE,
DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, THUMBA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM CENTRE,
VALIYAMALA, TRIVANDRUM-695547.
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, ANTARIKSH
BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560094.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
T.C.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:
1 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-680016,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., 680016
2 THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
ISRO CASUAL WORKERS UNION, KIZHAKKE BUNGALOW,
NEDUMANGAD P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695541.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANKARANARAYANAN-ASGI
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SRI.ANIL K.NAIR
SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases
-3-
SRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
SRI.THAYYIB SHA P.S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).18443/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases
-4-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18734 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE DIRECTOR,
VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE,
DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, THUMBA,
ISRO POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 022.
2 THE DIRECTOR,
LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM CENTRE,
VALIYAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547.
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, ANTARIKSH
BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 094.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SCGC
RESPONDENTS:
1 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM.
2 THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
ISRO CASUAL WORKERS UNION, KIZHAKKE BUNGALOW,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANKARANARAYANAN - ASGI
SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SRI.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases
-5-
SRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
SRI.THAYYIB SHA P.S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).18443/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases
-6-
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.18443/2021, 8000/2020, 18734/2021] This order of mine shall dispose of three writ petitions; W.P.(C) 8000 of 2020 preferred against the preliminary order rendered in I.D No.20/2017 dated 20.11.2019, W.P.(C) No.18443 of 2021 preferred against the preliminary order in I.D.No.35 of 2018 dated 7.4.2021 and W.P.(C) No.18734 of 2021 against the preliminary order in I.D.No.27 of 2018 dated 7.4.2021.
2. The controversy involved in these writ petitions falls under the narrow campus for consideration of this Court by raising the question whether Indian Space Research Organisation and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Others would be falling within the definition of 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Respondents, employed under contract basis through the contractor and engaged by the employer by WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -7- virtue of a contract as provided under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 submitted a complaint before the concerned Conciliation Officer, aggrieved of the inaction of the petitioners in not regularizing their services. Since the proceedings failed, matter was referred to the Government for reference to the Labour Court. It is in that background jurisdiction of the Labour Court was sought whereby all three aforementioned I.D. numbers have been allocated. The thrust of the petitioners before the Labour Court was that there had already been an adjudication of similar controversy in respect of I.D.No.11 of 2008, decided on 09.03.2010, where claim for not providing the facilities of contingent bonus and medical benefits was also referred as industrial dispute, on adjudication and preponderance of the evidence, it was held that the activities carried by the petitioners therein would not fall within the definition of 'Industry'. Labour Court was called upon to decide the preliminary issue with regard to the activity of the WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -8- management as an industry and in support thereof placed on record the aforesaid award. Labour Court vide impugned preliminary orders dated 07.04.2021 in I.D.Nos.27 and 35 of 2018, dated 20.11.2019 in I.D.No.20 of 2017, by relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers [2001 (7) SCC 1 :: 2002 KHC 609], and referring to paragraph Nos.125 and 126 of the judgment as well as by noticing that two companies namely Antrix Corporation and New Space India Limited were indulging into a commercial activity, rejected the objection of the petitioners and called upon the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the matter for determining the claim with regard to regularization. It is in that background the present writ petitions have been filed.
4. During the pendency of the writ petitions some additional documents have been placed on record in support of the grounds taken in the writ petitions with WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -9- advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, duly replied. The purpose of these documents is to render assistance to this Court for arriving at a just and fair finding and also to examine the veracity and impact of the preliminary orders under challenge.
5. Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General, in support of the averments made in the writ petitions, raised following submissions.
(i) The documents placed on record would establish that Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) does not have independent budget but is being allocated a grant by the Central Government under Demand No.94 as decided in the Parliament. The balance sheet would reflect that non-utilized grants were returned back.
(ii) Antrix Corporation and New Space India Limited are not the commercial arms of ISRO as they are separate entities. Companies established and registered under the Companies Act having own independent board WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -10- of directors with a Government's Majority Share holders and with a different set of employees have nothing to do with the works of the ISRO dealing with the space research works. Sending of Satellites of the foreign countries through the rockets manufactured by ISRO would not also be treated as a commercial activity as the ISRO does not receive any direct payment.
(iii) The resolution dated 31.12.1974 of Additional Secretary to the Government of India (Ext.P7 in W.P(C).8000/20) reveals that Ministries/Departments of the Government of India agreed that the space research are being provided through grants-in-aid made through the Physical Research Laboratory. Office memorandum dated 26.02.2021 Ext.P9 also reveals that the Ministry of Finance has allocated the Budget outlay of Rs.13949.09 crore (Rupees thirteen thousand nine hundred forty-nine crore and nine lakh only) business e-expenditure 2021-
22 for the Department of Space under demand No.94. Department of Space was under the aegis of the WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -11- Honourable Prime Minister and ISRO under the Department of Space, and, Antrix and ISRO are different arms of the Physical Research Laboratory.
(iv) ISRO is an autonomous body.
6. Jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by raising the objection qua maintainability of the claim petitions preferred before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on the ground that it would not have inherent jurisdiction as only the Central Administrative Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to decide the issue. It is in that context and background, this Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra), relegated the parties to Industrial Tribunal.
7. By submitting to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court petitioners autonomous body cannot be prevented to raise the objection viz-a-viz the maintainability being not industry. The dispute was "whether in case of the employees employed through the contractor under the WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -12- provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the appropriate Government would have the jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal or not".
8. On the other hand, Mr.Thomas Abraham submitted that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:
(i) petitioners acquiesced and are estopped to raise the plea of maintainability of claim petition on the ground that it does not fall within the definition of 'industry' for simple reason that neither in the conciliation proceedings or before the appropriate Government any such objection was raised.
(ii) Management had willfully and intentionally not placed on the record the contract entered into between the contractor and the workers performing the duty in rendering assistance to the Researchers as it would have been a clincher for adjudication of the issue on merits as well as on jurisdictional point.
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -13-
(iii) The additional documents placed on record cannot be looked into by this Court in the absence of their mode of proof and subject to the cross examination.
(iv) Controversy with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal has already been set at rest by judgments Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4 of this Court, rendered by Single Bench and affirmed by Division Bench.
(v) ISRO and Antrix are not separate entities. In fact, in the website of Antrix Corporation the company's profile states that Antrix is the commercial arm of Indian Space Research Organisation.
(vi) On plain and simple reading of the definition provided under Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act the activity of ISRO would fall within the expression 'industry' as noticed by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others (1978) 2 SCC 213), paragraph Nos.140, 142 and 143. For adjudication of the controversy with regard to regularization of the workers WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -14- it would be meaningless to check whether the activity undertaken by the petitioners is an industry or not and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petitions.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.
10. Parties on a preliminary issue were at variance with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain and try the claim petition and all the claim petitions for any relief sought has to be proceeded in that context to be an industry or not. In that factual background Labour Court was called upon to decide the following points for consideration as a preliminary issue.
"1. Is the reference maintainable ?
2. Are the workers entitled for bonus and other facilities ?"
11. Before the Labour Court workers examined themselves as WW1 and WW2 and documentary evidence W1 to W9 were produced and on the side of the Management, MW1 and Exhibits M1 to M8.
12. For proper comprehension, definition of WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -15- 'Industry' under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act, is extracted herein below:
"Industry means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen"
13. Labour Court did not agree with the previous preliminary order dated 09.03.2010 rendered in I.D.No.11/2000 in respect of the dispute between claimants-union and petitioners in W.P.(C) 8000/2020 i.e., Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Others simply on the premise that Antrix and the New Space India Limited are Companies which are undertaking commercial activities.
14. The aforementioned argument has been countered by Mr.Thomas Abraham on the ground that that was a case of a casual labourers whereas petitioners are falling under the definition of a 'contract labour' WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -16- which has a different connotation for the adjudication of the dispute as per the definition of 'contract labour' under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
15. For the sake of brevity the operative part of the preliminary order of the Labour Court rendering the issues against the petitioners organizations in IW.P(C)Nos.18443/21 and 18734/21 reads thus:-
"11. ISRO, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the management, is involved in research and development of Space technology. However in the year 1992, Govt of India, Dept. of Space, floated a company called M/s.Antrix Corporation as a marketing arm of ISRO for promotion and commercial exploitation of space products, technical consultancy services and transfer of technologies developed by ISRO. ISRO launched 239 satellites for 28 different countries as on October 2018. The commercial launches for foreign nations were negotiated through M/s Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of ISRO. The revenue earning of the Corporation as on 31.03.2017 was Rs.1,98,830 lakhs and Rs.2,03,933.16 lakhs as on 31.03.2018. Further ISRO has recently WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -17- launched a company called M/s. New Space India Ltd (NSIL) to commercialize space products and satellite development deals. The deal for launce of 13 U.S. satellites along with Cartosat -3 recently was negotiated by the new company, according to reports. It is also reported that the recent launches of foreign satellites were negotiated and formalized by M/s.NSIL. From the above it is very clear that the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case, (Supra) above is fully applicable to the present case and ISRO and will come within the definition of 'industry' U/S 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. All activities relatable to Sovereign functions of the government carried on by the Department of Space are excluded from the definition of industry U/S 2(j) of the ID Act. However when the commercialization of the research products are taken up, the management cannot claim exclusion as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case. It is seen that this issue was not considered by the Tribunal in ID No.11/2008."
16. In paragraph Nos.125 and 126 of the judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) the following parameters were laid down:
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -18- "125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus (1)(a). Before January 28, 1986, the determination of the question whether Central Government or the State Government, is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry; or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oil field or the establishment of Banking or Insurance Company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government, otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government;
(b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of S2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, if (1) the concerned Central Government Company/Undertaking or any undertaking is included therein co nomine, or (2) any industry is carried on (a) by railway company; or (c) by WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -19- specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government. (2)(a) A notification under S.10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government;
(1) after consulting with the Control Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and;
(2) having regard to
(i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question; and
(ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-s (2) of S. 10; (b) inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on December 9, 1976 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of S.10. It is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -20- no order passed or no action taken giving effect to the said notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in any Tribunal or Court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and / or it has been implemented.
(3) Neither S. 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under sub-s (1) of S.10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment;
(4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India's case (supra) prospectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any Court including High Court, for absorption of contract labour following the judgment in Air India's case (supra), shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final.
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -21-
5) On issuance of prohibition notification under S 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder (6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -22- and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
126. We have used the expression "industrial adjudicator" by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires inquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the Appropriate Authority to go into those issues will be Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.
In the result ;
CA Nos. 6009-10/2001 @S.LP (C) Nos. 12657- 58/1998."
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -23-
17. An emphasis is laid on Paragraph No.125(5) that the prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour and Regulations Abolishment Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labourer in regard to the conditions of service, it will be only the industrial adjudicator to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work. The expression "industrial adjudicator" was used for the reason that the questions raised by the rival parties are to be determined by labour court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is what has been held in the judgments of this Court viz. an objection of jurisdiction in respect of the matters either to be tried by the Central Administrative Tribunal or Industrial Tribunal and it was held that both the authorities have concurrent finding WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -24- but by relying the judgment referred to above, parties were relegated to seek the adjudication of the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal.
18. I do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Thomas Abraham that petitioner organization was incompetent and would not have called upon the Labour Court to decide the issue of industry as preliminary as much as that no such objection was raised at the time of adjudication of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer or before the appropriate Government. It is settled law that the legal plea can always be taken in a competent forum, whereas, in the judgment of the Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) controversy whether the Court under Article 226 would have the jurisdiction or the Central Administrative Authority which would not efface or arrest the right of the affected party to raise such issue. However, I am of the view that the findings of the Labour Court cannot withstand the touchstone of the Judicial verdict as it did not give any WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -25- opportunity to either of the parties to lead evidence in affirmative or rebuttal. It is settled law that the additional documents placed on record cannot be examined for the first time by this Court while deciding the veracity of the preliminary order/awardrendered by the Industrial Dispute Act. All these documents are required to be proved following the principles laid down under the Indian Evidence Act subject to mode of proof and cross examination by the rival parties. Thus, I would refrain myself of commenting further with regard to the maintainability or otherwise of the claim of the claimants much less ISRO as an industry or not for Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal while deciding the preliminary issue ought to have given atleast few effective opportunities to either of the parties to lead evidence by countering each other arguments and then arrive at the just and equitable decision for removing the grains from the chaff.
Accordingly, the preliminary orders dated WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -26- 20.11.2019 I.D No.20/2017 and dated 7.4.2021 rendered in I.D.Nos.27 of 2008 and 35 of 2018 are set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court. Labour Court is directed to revisit the issue by deciding the preliminary issue by affording four (4) effective turns in a span of one and half months each for both the parties i.e., total three months and decide the case thereafter within one month (total four months), in accordance with law.
Writ petitions are disposed off.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE vv WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -27- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8000/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(A) A COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL NOTIFICATION DATED 18.07.1972.
ANNEXURE R1(B) A COPY OF THE preliminary order DATED 09.03.2010 OF THE CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN ID NO.11/2008.
ANNEXURE R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.L42011 (14)/80-B.II.N DATED 01.01.1981 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
ANNEXURE R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF OM NO.7/6(1)/79-1 DATED 17.01.1981 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE.
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2016 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.14184/2015.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN REVIEW PETITION NO.56/2017.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A.NO.1238/2017.
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE CLAIMANT UNION BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT IN ID NO.20/2017.
EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT IN ID NO.20/2017.
WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -28- EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 20.11.2019 OF THE CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN ID NO.20/2017.
EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.1/1(5)/74-III DATED 31.12.1974 EXHIBIT P8 A COPY OF THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-21 AS PART OF DEMAND NO.94 EXHIBIT P9 A COPY OF THE OM NO. DS-2B-
11011/3(1)/2021 DATED 26.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE EXHIBIT P10 A COPY OF THE DOS OM NO.DS-2B-
11018/1/2022 DATED 21.03.2022 EXHIBIT P11 A COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.DS-2B-
11018/1/2022 DATED 21.03.2022 (REVENUE SECTION) EXHIBIT P12 A COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.DS-2B-
11018/1/2022 DATED 21.03.2022 (CAPITAL SECTION) EXHIBIT P13 A COPY OF THE ORGANIZATION CHART OF DEPARTMENT OF SPACE WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -29- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18734/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/11/2016 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NOS.14184/2015. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16/02/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN R.P.NOS.58/2017, 56/2017 & 61/2017.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/06/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A.NOS.1229/2017.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/10/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.40883/2016.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE CLAIMANT UNION BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT IN ID NO.27/2018.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT IN ID NO.27/2018.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 07/04/2021 OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN ID NO.27/2018.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16/03/2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.8000/2020.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -30- 1/1(5)/74-III DATED 31/12/1974 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-21 AS PART OF DEMAND NO. 94 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M NO. D2-28- 11011/3(1)/2021 DATED 26/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DOS OM NO. DS-2B-
1108/1/2022 DATED 21/03/2022 (REVENUE SECTION) Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. DS-
2B-11018/1/2022 DATED 21/03/2022 (REVENUE SECTION) Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. DS-
2B-11018/1/2022 DATED 21/03/2022 (CAPITAL SECTION) Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORGANISATION CHART OF DEPARTMENT OF SPACE WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -31- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18443/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NOS. 32501/2016, 34162/2016 AND WPC NO. 14184/2015. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2017 IN REVIEW PETITION 56/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES INCLUDING RP NOS. 58/2017 AND 61/2017 ARISING OUT EXHIBIT P1 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1203/2017 IN WPC NO. 32501/2016 DATED 30/06/2017 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/10/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO. 40883/2016.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN ID NO.35/2018 DATED 17/06/2019.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN ID NO.35/2018.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 07/04/2021 IN ID NO.27/2018 AND IA 2/2021 IN ID NO.35/2018 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO. WP(C) NO. 18443 OF 2021 and conn.cases -32- 8000/2020 DATED 16/03/2020 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.
1/1(5)/74-III DATED 31/12/1974 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-21 AS PART OF DEMAND NO. 94 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO. DS-2B-
11011/3(1)/2021 DATED 26/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DOS OM NO. DS-2B-
11018/1/2022 DATED 21/03/2022 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. DS-
2B-11018/1/2022 DATED 21/03/2022 (REVENUE SECTION) Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. DS-
2B-11018/1/2022 DATED 21/03/2022 (CAPITAL SECTION) Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORGANISATION CHART OF DEPARTMENT OF SPACE