Kerala High Court
Kerala Kasuvandi Thozhilali Congress vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 4TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2899 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KERALA KASUVANDI THOZHILALI CONGRESS,
RAJEEV BHAVAN, INTUC OFFICE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM-
691505 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MR. SAVIN
SATHYAN, USHAS, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691505
BY ADV NEBIL NIZAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
SKILLS, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 LABOR COMMISSIONER,
LABOR COMMISSIONERATE, THOZHIL BHAVAN,
THIRIVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 DISTRICT LABOR OFFICER,
DISTRICT LABOR OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM- KERALA.,
PIN - 690013
4 DISTRICT LABOR OFFICER,
DISTRICT LABOR OFFICE, SREEVALSAM BUILDING, KIDAGAM
PARAMBU, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688013
5 KERALA CASHEW WORKERS RELIEF AND WELFARE FUND BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNDAKKAL
VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
6 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EPF SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, PONNAMMA CHAMBERS, PARAMESWAR
NAGAR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
7 M/S KAILAS CASHEW EXPORTS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 7-
PEZHOOKONAM,CHEERANKAVU, KOLLAM- KERALA, PIN - 691505
8 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED.
REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, TC 31/151,
3RD FLOOR, YMCA BUILDINGS, SPENCER JUNCTION, MG ROAD,
WP(C) NO. 2899 OF 2024
2
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C S SHEEJA, SR. GP., SRI. M K CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC
FOR KERALA CASHEW WORKERS RELIEF & WELFARE FUND BOARD,
SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K GOPAL, SC FOR EPFO, SRI. SUNIL
SANKAR.P, SC FOR SOUTH INDIAN BANK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2899 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a registered Trade Union. They contend that members of the aforesaid trade union were employed in a proprietary firm run by the 7 th respondent. According to them, the 7th respondent illegally closed down the factory about five years back without complying with the provisions of the labour enactments. It is contended that the petitioner has received information that the 8th respondent Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, against the assets of the 7 th respondent. In the said circumstances, they are stated to have submitted a representation on 10.01.2024 before the 1st respondent against the unilateral closure without complying with due process of law. They also submitted various representations before the 5th respondent. Complaining of inaction, they are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus to the 1 st Respondent to consider the representation under Exhibit P1.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd Respondent to take legal action against the 7 th Respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act.
iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the 2 nd Respondent to protect the employment, salary, wages, retrenchment compensation etc. of 1150 workers, including those retired employed with the 7 th WP(C) NO. 2899 OF 2024 4 Respondent.
iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the 2nd Respondent to direct the 08th Respondent to treat the salary, wages, bonus, retrenchment compensation, and gratuity of the workers of the 7th Respondent company as 'Charges' on the assets of the 7 th Respondent.
v) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the 5th Respondent to consider the Exhibit P2 complaint made by the Petitioner.
vi) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the 6th Respondent to treat the amount due under the Employees Provident Fund Act from the 7th Respondent as Charges on the assets of the 7 th Respondent.
2. The learned Government Pleader would point out that, from the pleadings in the writ petition, it is apparent that the factory was closed down by the 7th respondent half a decade back. There is no case for the petitioner that they had approached the jurisdictional authorities seeking reference of any dispute between them and the employer to the jurisdictional forum. It is submitted that this writ petition was filed only after the issuance of paper publication by the bank on 2.1.2024 informing the sale of the immovable property. It is submitted that this writ petition is nothing but a proxy litigation for and on behalf of the defaulter to stall the securitization proceedings.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that though WP(C) NO. 2899 OF 2024 5 the factory was closed more than 5 years back. The proprietor of the factory, as well as his wife, had approached this Court and had filed writ petitions challenging the securitization proceedings, and those petitions have been dismissed. This is a last-ditch effort to dissuade prospective buyers by making it appear that litigation on behalf of the workers is pending before this Court. It is submitted that Crores of public funds stand blocked, and any delay in realizing the amounts has serious economic consequences.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced. Apparently, this writ petition is filed pursuant to the issuance of Ext.P3 notification. There is no evidence before this Court to suggest that either the workers or the petitioner had initiated an industrial dispute or approached jurisdictional forums with the workers' claims. The submissions indicate an attempt to interfere with the sale pursuant to Ext.P3 notification and deter potential buyers. It is obvious that the filing of the petition is an obstructionist tactic rather than a legitimate claim for workers' rights or entitlements. It would be open to the petitioner to raise their contentions before the jurisdictional labor forums and secure their remedies. Reserving such right, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE bng WP(C) NO. 2899 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2899/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF A REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 11.01.2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 15.01.2024 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MATHURUBHOOMI NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT DTD.2.1.2024 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.01.2024