SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION STAFF ORGANISATION (INTUC) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 982 OF 2016|WP(C) NO. 1002 OF 2016|WP(C) NO. 4004 OF 2019|WP(C) NO. 3038 OF 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.ASHOK SHENOY, K.V.GEORGE, P.S.GIREESH, P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI.NAVEEN.T., STANDING COUNSEL, G.P-SRI.K.M.FAIZAL

The commencement of conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act triggers protections against altering conditions of employment during disputes.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 20, 33(1) - Conciliation proceedings - Security guards employed by agency engaged by Kerala State Beverages Corporation - Petitioners contending for regularization and wage parity following an industrial dispute - The court declares that the conciliation proceeding has commenced and directs the Additional Labour Commissioner to conclude proceedings within three months, maintaining status quo in the meantime, with provisions for wage consideration under notifications applicable (Paras 19, 14, 16).

(B) Confidentiality of disputes in non-public utility services - Court stresses discretionary power of the Conciliation Officer and sets aside refusal to consider wage requests for employees based on expired contract and ongoing status quo orders (Paras 17 & 18).

Table of Content
1. general agreement conditions regarding the employment and contract duration. (Para 2 , 3)
2. union's demand for regularization of security guard employment status is based on ongoing legal proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9)
3. conciliation proceedings are initiated and status quo must be maintained until resolution. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. wage requests must be considered by the ksbc according to existing legal obligations and court orders. (Para 17 , 18)

“C.R” JUDGMENT

Since Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2.W.P.(C) No. 1002 of 2016 is filed by the Managing Director of Force India Management Services and Securities (hereinafter referred to as the 'security agency', unless otherwise specifically stated), a proprietary firm engaged in the supply of security personnel for Government and non- governmental institutions. The Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'KSBC', for short) invited competitive tenders for deployment of security guards (unarmed) on contract basis for security duty at their FL-9 warehouses and head ofÏce and on being awarded the contract, the petitioner entered into Ext.P1 agreement. As per clause 9 of the agreement, the liability to pay the salary and other statutory dues of the security staff is on the security agency. Clause 22 provides that the period of Contract will be for three years with effect from 16.07.2012 with an annual escalation based on the maximum variable Dearness Allowance as per the Consumer Price Index.

3. Pursuant to the contract, the security agency recruited 97 employees and deployed them at the various sites of KSBC. While continuing with such arrangement for security duties, the General Administration Department, Government of Kerala issued Circular No.71307/12/GAD dated 01.10.2012 directing the public sector undertakings and Government companies to engage security personnel from Kerala State Ex-Service Development and Rehabilitation (KEXCON). Based on the said circular, the KSBC took steps to terminate the contract arrangement with the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.1437 of 2013 before this Court and on the strength of interim order dated 18.01.2013, the contract was continued. Later, the said writ petition was finally closed by judgment dated 08.09.2015 observing that the period of contract was already over by then. This writ petition is filed by the security agency contending that even after expiry of the period of contract, they are continuing; but the KSBC is not disbursing the amounts due to them in terms of clause 22 of the contract and therefore, prays for direction to KSBC to release the amounts due as annual escalation as provided under clause 22.

4.The KSBC has filed a counter afÏdavit resisting the averments in the writ petition contending that it had been engaging security guards from different security agencies since its inception in 1984 following open tender process and Ext.P1 contract provides clause for termination by giving two months notice and the contract with the petitioner agency was terminated on 18.01.2013 and annual escalation as per clause 22 of the contract is not available on expiry of the contract and while continuing on the strength of interim order of the Court.

5. W.P.(C) No.982 of 2016 is filed by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Staff Organisation (INTUC), a trade union of workmen of the KSBC, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 contending that the KSBC had engaged 93 workmen as security guards in their 22 warehouses and head ofÏce from the year 1984 uninterruptedly, but they are not paid wages and benefits as payable to regular employees and they are treated as 'contract labours' based on sham contracts to deny them their legitimate benefits. The petitioner union, by Ext.P1 charter of demands, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top