Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32262
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
THE GENERAL SECRETARY
– Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR – Respondent
WA 1462 2022
THOMAS ABRAHAM, MERCIAMMA MATHEW, ASWIN.P.JOHN, R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN, PAUL BABY, KRISHNA T C, CGC
Maintainability of disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act must be resolved by the labor court and not interrupted by high court writs.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes - Writ Appeals - Industrial Disputes Act - Maintainability of Disputes - The court upheld the Labor Court's authority to determine maintainability and expedited the process within a set timeline, reaffirming principles from Supreme Court precedents on judicial restraint in preliminary matters.
Fact of the Case:
A union challenged an order regarding the maintainability of a dispute over regularization of contract workers. The initial order of the tribunal was set aside by a single judge, leading to writ appeals.
Issues: Whether the maintainability of the dispute can be addressed at this stage or should be waited upon until the labor court reviews the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ petitions against preliminary orders of the labor court are typically not entertained. The labor court must decide on maintainability independently, adhering to the timeline directed.
Final Decision: Writ appeals disposed, directing labor court to revisit maintainability within specified timelines.
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias.C.P.J The General Secretary, ISRO Casual Workers Union, the second respondent in the writ petitions has filed these writ appeals challenging the judgment in WP(C)Nos.18734 of 2021, 8000 of 2020 and 18443 of 2021, which set aside Ext.P6 preliminary order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, that rejected the objection raised by the writ petitioners, the Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) and others regarding the maintainability of the dispute.
2. The appellant-Union had raised a dispute for regularization of contract labour workmen represented by it. The reference was for the composite issues, viz., whether the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to ISRO and whether the contracts under which 123 workers were engaged is sham or not. The ID was filed in the year
2017. The Tribunal considered the question of maintainability urged on behalf of the writ petitioners and rejected their objection by Ext.P6 order passed on 20.11.2019. It was this order that was challenged in the writ petitions. The writ petitioners had also filed IA No.1 of 2022 before this Court seeking to produce certain documents, which were not part of the documents produced before the Tribunal.
3.The learned single Judge considered the said documents as well and set aside Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal and directed the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue again and directed to re- visit the issue by deciding the preliminary issue by affording four effective turns in a span of one and half months each for both the parties and to decide the case thereafter within a month, in accordance with law. The said common judgment in the writ petitions is challenged in the appeals before us.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Thomas Abraham contends that the ID was filed as early as on 2017 and the written statement was filed after more than two years and four months. The maintainability was requested to be considered only thereafter even without an interlocutory application and based on the pleadings, the issue was heard and the Tribunal passed Ext.P6 order rejecting the contentions of maintainability. According to the learned counsel, there was no error, legal or factual to interfere with Ext.P6 order. He further argues that the documents which are produced before this Court belatedly have also be taken into consideration while setting aside Ext.P6 order and the same has caused prejudice to the appellant- Union. It is his further argument that going by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the ISRO would come within the definition of Industry under the Act.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents argues that maintainability was raised as a preliminary issue as the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and sought to sustain the order of the learned single Judge.
6. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the directions in the judgment of the learned single Judge that relegated the parties to the Labour Court, to consider the issue of maintainability within the time frame fixed and also to consider the matter on merits thereafter, we do not think that any interference is called for as an expeditious disposal within the time limit fixed would serve the ends of justice and also in the larger interest of the Union. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the observations of the learned single Judge would prejudice the proceedings before the Labour Court is misplaced. At any rate, to quell the apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant, while directing the Labour Court to strictly adhere to the time limit fixed by the learned single Judge, we also make it clear that admissibility of the documents produced before this Court also will be considered by the Labour Court while considering the preliminary issue of maintainability afresh. The Labour Court will have to decide the issue before it independently and o
