H.N.L.Casual And Contract Worker'S vs Union Of India Rep.By Secretary on 30 October, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

H.N.L.Casual And Contract Worker'S vs Union Of India Rep.By Secretary on 30 October, 2009

Bench: S.Siri Jagan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15399 of 2009(T)


1. H.N.L.CASUAL AND CONTRACT WORKER'S
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA REP.BY SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASST.LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),

3. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE

4. HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LTD.,

5. H.P.C.WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC),

6. H.N.GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU),

7. HNL CASUAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC),

8. HNL MEGHALA WORKERS UNION (AITUC),

9. H.N.MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), NEWS PRINT

10. H.N.MAZDOOR UNION (HMS), NEWS PRINT

11. HNL LABOURERS UNION (INLC),

12. K.B.S.HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS

13. HNL INDUSTRIAL CANTEEN WORKERS UNION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :30/10/2009

 O R D E R
                            S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                      ==================

                       W.P(C).No.15399 of 2009

                      ==================

               Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a union of employees of the 4th respondent management. They are aggrieved by Ext.P5 notice, whereby the 3rd respondent has initiated conciliation proceedings in respect of the issue of regularisation of casual/contract workers. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in so far as in respect of the 4th respondent, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. Earlier, by Ext.P1 notification, under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government had notified that in respect of the Central Public Sector undertakings and their subsidiaries, Corporations and autonomous bodies specified in the schedule annexed to the notification, the State Government may also exercise powers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Calcutta is included as item 58 in that notification. The 4th respondent is a subsidiary of the Hindustan Paper Corporation. Therefore, Ext.P1 coveres the 4th respondent as well. But the Central Government themselves by Ext.P2 notification dated 5.5.2008 cancelled Ext.P1 notification. Hence, with effect from 5.5.2008 the State Government ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of the 4th respondent in the industrial dispute is the 2 contention raised by the petitioner.

2. I am of opinion that nothing prevents the petitioner from bringing to the attention of the Labour Commissioner that in view of Exts.P1 and P2 the State Government ceased to be the appropriate authority in respect of the 4th respondent, in which event, the Labour Commissioner has to consider that question and to decide on the same. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take up the matter with the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is closed.

Sd/-

sdk+                                             S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

         ///True copy///




                             P.A. to Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court