High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-09-24Writ petition disposed of with directions for t...

K.K. Rajan and Others v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 16340 of 2011 (N)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: HARUN-UL-RASHID
Judgment Date: 2012-09-24
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the grievance explained in Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and other affected parties, if any. A decision shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions for the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 and issue orders after hearing within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.K.RAJAN
I.P.JOSE
P.J.SAJAN
C.V.KALEESH KUMAR
ABDUL RAHIM P.M

Respondents

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BTR MEMORIAL, MELA, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION (AITUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, CHITARANJAN SMARAKAM, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION (INTUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKAM, AMBULA VILASAM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
K.O.HABEEB, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WORKERS ASSOCIATION, BTR MEMORIAL, MELA THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
M.SUKUMARA PILLAI, PATRON, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION, CHITARANJAN SMARAKAM, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
A.N.RAJAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION, CHITARANJAN SMARAKAM, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
K.P.DHANAPALAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKAM, AMBULA VILASOM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
M.S.RAWTHER, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES, CONFEDERATION, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKAM, AMBULA VILASOM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001
SIBI KUTTY FRANCIS, TREASURER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKAM, AMBUJA VILASOM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.RAMESH BABU

Counsels for Respondents

• G.S. REGHUNATH
• ASOK M.CHERIAN
• A.JAYASANKAR
• MANU GOVIND
• K.S.ANIL
• P.P.PADMALAYAN (GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the Kerala State Electricity Board's grant of permission to non-workmen to represent the workmen in deliberations and settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners, five workmen employed by KSEB, contend that sections 3 and 36 of the Act, read with the Trade Unions Act, 1926, require representation of workmen to be drawn only from those actually employed in the establishment, and that outsiders or ex-workmen cannot represent. They point to Ext.P2, a communication dated 4.6.2011 inviting respondents 10 to 12, who are non-workmen, to participate in meetings convened by the Board, and to Ext.P3, a representation dated 27.1.2010 by the 4th petitioner urging that settlements should not be arrived at by including non-workmen. The petition relies on State Bank of India Staff Association v. State Bank of India (1996) 4 SCC 378, where the Supreme Court held that representatives must be chosen from among those already engaged, and that the Trade Unions Act must be harmonised with the IDA. The respondents, while invoking tripartite discussions with registered unions, contend that decisions must reflect the established practice and legal framework. The court, while acknowledging the SBI principle, directs the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 in light of that decision and to issue orders after hearing within two months, thereby balancing statutory tenets with the Board's administrative processes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 3Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 36Trade Unions Act, 1926

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Representatives of workmen must be chosen from among the workmen; outsiders/ex-workmen cannot represent.
Trade Unions Act, 1926 must be harmonised with Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that under Section 3 read with Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, representatives of the workmen must be drawn only from those actually employed in the establishment, and outsiders or ex-workmen cannot represent. They point to Ext.P2 (4.6.2011) inviting non-workmen (respondents 10 to 12) to attend meetings, and Ext.P3 (27.1.2010) representing the petitioners’ view that settlements should be concluded only through workmen’s representatives. Relying on State Bank of India Staff Association v. State Bank of India (1996) 4 SCC 378, they argue that the law requires workmen’s representatives to be chosen from within the establishment and harmonised with the Trade Unions Act, 1926. They seek a mandamus to prevent non-workmen from representing and to declare respondents 7-12 not entitled to represent workmen. They pray for outcomes consistent with the IDA’s protective framework for workmen, and for prompt protective relief to ensure lawful representation in negotiations.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that deliberations and settlements involve recognized trade unions and tripartite processes; Ext.P2 shows the Board’s practice of inviting registered unions to meetings, reflecting a structured representation framework. They argue that the decision-making process must align with the statutory scheme and parleys conducted with the duly recognised unions. They emphasize the need to harmonise the IDA with the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and believe that the Board’s approach ensures orderly consultation with representative bodies, even as the SBI decision is acknowledged. They request the court to allow the Board to consider Ext.P3 within the statutory framework, after hearing affected parties, and to issue appropriate orders within a reasonable time, thereby preserving the Board’s administrative and tripartite mechanisms.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State Bank of India Staff Association v. State Bank of India	1996 (4) SCC 378	Positive	Cited to establish that workmen's representatives must be drawn from among the workmen within the establishment; outsiders/ex-workmen cannot represent; the decision must be harmonised with the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.K. Rajan and Others v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/2ND ASWINA 1934 ## WP(C).No. 16340 of 2011 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. K.K.RAJAN, LINE MAN ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD NORTH PARAVUR 2. I.P.JOSE,OVERSEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ALWAYE NORTH 3. P.J.SAJAN, OVERSEER, - ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ANGAMALY 4. C.V.KALEESH KUMAR, OVERSEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHOTTANIKKARA 5. ABDUL RAHIM P.M,SUB ENGINEER, VYTILA, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS: - -------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 (CNTD.......2) WP(C).No. 16340 of 2011 (N) ::2:: 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BTR MEMORIAL, MELA, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION (AITUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, CHITARANJAN SMARAKAM, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 6. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION (INTUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKA MANDIRAM, AMBUJA VILASAM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 7. K.O.HABEEB, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WORKERS ASSOCIATION, BTR MEMORIAL, MELA THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 8. M.SUKUMARA PILLAI, PATRON, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION, CHITARANJAN SMARAKAM, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 9. A.N.RAJAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION, CHITARANJAN SMARAKAM, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 10. K.P.DHANAPALAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKAM, AMBULA VILASOM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 11. M.S.RAWTHER, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES, CONFEDERATION, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKAM, AMBULA VILASOM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 12. SIBI KUTTY FRANCIS, TREASURER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION, V.P.MARAKKAR SMARAKAM, AMBUJA VILASOM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 (CNTD........3) WP(C).No. 16340 of 2011 (N) ::3:: BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16340 of 2011 (N) ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SETTLEMENT DTD. 28.2.2011. EXT.P2: LETTER DTD. 4.6.2011. EXT.P3: LETTER DTD. 27.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P4: DRAFT OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT, BOARD AND THE EMPLOYEES AS PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ........ // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. **HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.** ## **-----------------------W.P.(C).No.16340 Of 2011** **---------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of September, 2012.** ## **J U D G M E N T** The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. _A. To declare that in terms of Section 3 read with Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the first and second respondents are obliged to conduct any deliberations and settlements regarding conditions of service of workmen in the Kerala State Electricity Board solely with such representatives of trade unions duly recognised who are in the category of workmen as defined in the said Act._ _B. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first and second respondents not to permit any nonworkmen to represent the workmen category for any deliberations/settlements etc. so as to affect the conditions of service of workmen in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act._ _C. To declare that respondents seven to twelve in so far as they are not “workmen” are not entitled to represent the workmen of the Kerala State Electricity Board for the purpose of any deliberations/negotiation/settlement in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act._ _D. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first and second respondents not to permit respondents seven to twelve to represent the workmen of the Board in the matter of deliberations/settlements etc. so as to affect the conditions of service of workmen in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act._ **::2::** ## **W.P.(C).No.16340 Of 2011** 2. The petitioners are persons employed as workmen in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The matter in issue in the writ petition is concerning the legality of the grant of permission by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to members/office bearers of the three unions who do not belong to the workmen category to represent the workmen in various discussions and settlements. The contentions raised by the petitioners is that in terms of Section 3 read with Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the representatives of the workmen have to be chosen only from amongst the workmen already engaged in the establishment and not an outsider or an ex-workman of the establishment concerned or any other person. Ext.P2 is the communication issued by the Secretary of the Board dated 4.6.2011 inviting respondents 10 to 12 for meeting of the registered trade unions convened by the Board. The 4[th] petitioner submitted a representation on 27.1.2010 to the 1[st] respondent pointing out that the settlement should not be arrived at by including non-workmen and outsiders as representing the workmen at the discussions prior to the settlement. Ext.P3 is the **::3::** ## **W.P.(C).No.16340 Of 2011** copy of the representation. The grievance of the petitioners is that ignoring Ext.P3, respondents 7 to 9 who are not workmen were allowed to participate as representing the workmen and the Board continues to permit the workmen to be represented by the non-workmen/outsiders. 3. Petitioners pointed out that the very same issue as involved in this writ petition was considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in _**State Bank of India Staff Association**_ _**v. State Bank of India**_ (1996 (4) SCC 378). The Apex Court in the said decision held as follows: _“Under the Industrial Disputes Act, the representatives of the workmen have to be chosen only from amongst the workmen already engaged in the establishment and not an outsider or an ex-workman of the establishment concerned or any other person. It would, therefore, not be correct to contend that having regard to the provisions of Section 36 read with Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act an honorary/temporary member or a private individual is entitled to represent the workmen in the mailers aforesaid. While referring to the provisions of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act cannot be overlooked or ignored. The provisions of the Trade_ **::4::** ## **W.P.(C).No.16340 Of 2011** _Unions Act, 1926 have to be harmonised with the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”_ 4. In the light of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is for the 1[st] respondent to consider the issue as to whether respondents 7 to 12 can be permitted to represent the Board in the matter of deliberations/settlements so as to affect conditions of workmen in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioners as explained in Ext.P3 representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and other affected parties, if any. A decision shall be taken by the 1[st] respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.** bkn/-