Kerala High Court
M/S. The Professional Couriers Aged 64 ... vs M.K. Babu on 3 April, 2012
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/18TH MAGHA 1934
OP(LC).No. 1466 of 2012 (O)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP.18/2011 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED
3-4-2012)
PETITIONER:
-----------
M/S. THE PROFESSIONAL COURIERS AGED 64 YEARS
PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION).
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. M.K. BABU
MANJAAMKUZHIYIL VEEDU, MANEED P.O., PIRAVOM
ERNAKULAM, PIN-686726.
2. GANGADHARAN NAIR M.K.
MELEDATH VEEDU, MRALA P.O., THODUPUZHA
IDUKKI, PIN-685587.
3. SMITHA VINOD
THEYYATHUMPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O.
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682028.
4. BINU P.B.,
POTTAKKAL VEEDU, MANEED P.O., PIRAVOM
ERNAKULAM, PIN-686726.
R1, R3, R4 BY ADV. SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR
THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(LC).No. 1466 of 2012 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION NO.18 OF 2011 ALONG WITH
THE SUMMON DATED 17-10-2011 AND STATEMENT, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
HEREIN BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, DATED SEPTEMBER 2011.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 12-12-2011 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CP 18 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DIRECTION DATED 17-1-2012
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CP 18 OF
2011.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DIRECTION DATED 8-2-2012
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, IN CP 18
OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21-2-2012 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUT COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CP 18 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-4-2012 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30-11-2011 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, IN CP 18 OF 2011.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
R1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D NO.35/2006 DATED 25.8.2009
R2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDRUM OF WPC NO.3579/2010 DATED 27.1.2010.
R3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.6.2010 IN WP(C)
NO.3579/2010.
R4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.3579/2010 DT. 28.3.2011.
R5: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A. 16/2012 IN C.P.
NO.18/2012 DT. 8.2.2012.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
Scl.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
O.P.(LC).NO.1466 OF 2012
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the opposite party - management - in a pending proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for short, the 'Act'. Claimants in that proceedings are the respondents herein, who got favourable award in a reference made over an industrial dispute with the employer, by which among other directions the management was directed to give them all service benefits during the period they were employed under the second management. In the aforesaid proceedings the claimants/workmen applied for production of some documents by the management, to substantiate their claim for money towards their service benefits payable by the employer. Ext.P6 is the petition filed by the workmen. Documents sought to be produced are registers for payment of wages/salaries, Employees Provident Fund, Employees State O.P.(LC).No.1466/2012 2 insurance, contributions to the employees by the employer. Production of those documents was objected by the petitioner. However, the lower court directed the petitioner to produce the documents or file affidavit. Order so passed by the labour court in Ext.P6 application moved by the workmen is challenged in the above original petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner drawing attention to the provisions covered by Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short the 'Code', sought to assail the order of the labour court directing production of the documents contending that such order has been passed without examining the objections raised and also looking into the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced, which, according to counsel, do not relate to the claimants, who were working under a franchisee. I do not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel to impeach the order directing production of documents. If we go by Rule 63 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, for short, the 'Rules', the O.P.(LC).No.1466/2012 3 labour court is fully competent to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of computing the money value of any benefit claimed by a workman in a proceedings under Section 33C of the Act. Rule 68 of the Rules further provides that the commissioner so appointed can call for and examine the documents and other things relevant to the subject of an enquiry. A commissioner appointed by a labour court is provided such powers for the purpose of quantification of the benefit due to the workmen claimed in a proceedings in the nature involved is more than sufficient to hold that the labour court which is otherwise empowered under Section 24 of the Rules to order for discovery and inspection of any documents/registers which is relevant for the enquiry in such proceedings is fully competent to order production of relevant documents from employer. The respondents/workmen have raised an industrial dispute over some unfair labour practice by the petitioner and also its franchise - the second management. That gave rise to Ext.R1 award holding that alteration of the service conditions of the workmen by petitioner amounted to unfair labour practice, with O.P.(LC).No.1466/2012 4 direction that the workmen are entitled to continue in service and get all service benefits accounting the period of service they were alleged to be employed under the franchise. That award was challenged by petitioner filing an original petition but that original petition was dismissed as withdrawn with costs. Claim raised by the workmen is based on Ext.R1 award. Documents/registers sought for by them even if it does not relate to them but to other employees of petitioner may have relevance in quantifying the service benefits allegedly due to the workmen. I do not find any impropriety leave alone any illegality in the order passed by the labour court directing the petitioner employer to produce the registers specified in Ext.P6 application or to file affidavit. There is no merit in the original petition, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp