United Labour Federation represented by its General Secretary, K. Nityanandam, Chennai vs Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Surface Transport, Department of Shipping, Port Department, ‘Transport Bhavan’, No. 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2001 Supreme(Mad) 1397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J. and K.P.Sivasubramaniam, J.
United Labour Federation represented by its General Secretary, K.Nityanandam, Chennai
Versus
Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Surface Transport, Department of Shipping, Port Department, ‘Transport Bhavan’, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 and others
W.A.Nos.1921 and 2029 of 2001, C.M.P.No.15570 of 2001 and W.A.M.P.Nos.16590 and 16591 of 2001
Decided On : 28 November 2001

Advocates:
V.Prakash, for Appellant in both Appeals.
V.T.Gopalan, Additional Solicitor General, for N.Kannadasan, SCGSC, for Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1921 of 2001 and for Respondent No.2 in W.A.No.2029 of 2001.
A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel, for A.Armugham and M/s.Aiyar and Dolia, for Respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1921 of 2001 and for Respondent No.3 in W.A.No.2029 of 2001.
Paranthaman, for Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.2029 of 2001.
G.Venkataraman, for Respondent No.4 in W.A.No.2029 of 2001.
R.Krishnamoorthy and C.A.Sundaram, Senior Counsel, for V.Nataraj, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.A.No.1921 of 2001 and for Respondent No.5 in W.A.No.2029 of 2001.

Headnote:Major Port Trusts Act, 1963-Section 111-Policy decision-Regarding amendment of contracts without recourse to tender or public auction-Validity-No interference is required holding the policy beneficial for in public interest.

JUDGMENT :

B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J.: Handing over of container terminal of Chennai Port Trust to a private party, otherwise then by tender/ public auction, had evoked this litigation.

2. The appellant in both the writ appeals is United Labour Federation, represented by its General Secretary Mr.K. Nithytanandam. While W.A.No.2029 of 2001 is directed against the order in W.P.No.16845 of 2000, W.A.No.1921 of 2001 is directed against the order in W.P. No.12783 of 2001. While the appellant was the petitioner in W.P. No.12783 of 2001, it was not a party in W.P. No.16845 of 2000. W.A. No.2029 of 2001 was filed obtaining leave, which was granted by this Court.

3. W.P. No.16845 of 2000 filed by Chennai Port Trust Dock Workers Congress (INTUC) represented by its General Secretary Mr.G. Kalan assailing the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the Government of India, by which the Chennai Port Trust was permitted to conclude a contract with the private party which is P and O Australia Ports Private Limited. In W.P. No.12783 of 2001, the challenge is made to Circular No.A/43/2000, dated 28.6.2001 and its later clarification circular dated 29.6.2001 until the Chennai Port Trust implements the benefits that accrue to the members of the petitioner Union employed in the container terminal of the Chennai Port Trust. Several other writ petitions were filed along with W.P.No.16845 of 2000 but we need not refer to all of them, as there are no writ appeals filed relating to those writ petitions.

4. We refer to the parties as arrayed in W.A.No.2029 of 2001 in which the writ petition in W.P.No.16845 of 2000 is the first respondent, Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Surface Transport, is the second respondent, Chennai Port Trust is the third respondent, Madras Dock Labour Board, is the fourth respondent and P & O Australia Ports Pvt. Ltd. is the fifth respondent.

5. The container terminal in Chennai Port Trust was constructed with a view to function as a hub port in the South Asian region to have mainline vessels directly calling at this Port to cater to the needs of traders in India, particularly in the Southern Region. That was in the year 1983 and at the same time Colombo Port had also started its operation. Efforts to make Chennai Port Trust as a hub port for container did not materialise for various reasons, the main being the lack of proper technical expertise and the financial resources. Consequently, Chennai Port Trust was only acting as a feeder port to Colombo and Singapore Ports for transshipment to the mainline vessels. To make container terminal of the Chennai Port Trust as the hub port, respondents 2 and 3 had started the process. Three bids were received through the sealed tenders. The offer made by the fifth respondent was considered the best and the second respondent chose the fifth respondent for entrusting the development and management of container terminal of Chennai Port Trust, which is hereinafter referred to as the ‘container terminal’. The 3rd respondent was directed to proceed further to conclude the contract with the 5th respondent.

6. Meanwhile on 2.8.2000, a memorandum of settlement was entered into by the Management of all the Major Ports with the Labour Federations under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tenure of the said statutory agreement is 10 years form 1.1.1997. It was a tripartite settlement covering the following aspects.

(1) Revised pay scales.

(2) Fixation of pay as on the 1st January, 1997 in the revised scale.

(3) Stagnation increment.

(4) Date of next increment in the pay scale.

(5) Personal pay for small family norm.

(6) Dearness allowance.

(7) House rent allowance.

(8) Port allowance.

(9) Transport reimbursement.

(10) Children education allowance and reimbursement of tuition fees.

(11) Washing reimbursement.

(12) Revision of TA & DA.