HLL LIFECARE LTD Vs. HINDUSTAN LATEX LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and in so far as this writ petition is concerned, the petitioner has a factory at Peroorkkada in Thiruvananthapuram District, with 889 employees, who are represented by 3 recognized Trade Unions, including the 1st respondent. It is stated that by Ext.P-4 dated 16-3-2009 the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that its General Secretary Mr. Ajay K. Prakash is nominated as a protected workman and requested the Management to recognize its nominee as a protected workman. Apparently, for the reason that disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Exts.P-1 to P-3 memos of charges are pending against the workman, the petitioner issued Ext.P-5 reply informing the 1 st respondent mat its request cannot be accepted.

(2.) Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed Ext. P-6 petition under Rule 61 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Rules), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) before the 2nd respondent, to which Ext.P-7 objection was filed by the petitioner. Parties were heard and the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P-8 order directing the petitioner to recognize Mr.Ajay K.Prakash, the General Secretary of the 1st respondent Union as a protected workman. It is seeking to quash Ext.P-8 that this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The contention raised by the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent was exercising quasi-judicial powers and that Ext.P-8 order was passed without adverting to the contentions raised. It is also contended that the workman nominated as protected workman is facing disciplinary actions and that his nomination was only to avail of the protection as provided under Section 33(4) of the Act and to defeat/delay the pending disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that none of the other recognized Unions have sought status of 'protected workman' for their representatives, and that there is no such practice prevailing in the industry. It is stated that if the nomination is accepted, and the workman is recognized as a protected workman, it will adversely affect the industrial peace and harmony now existing in the industry. It is on this basis, the petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P-8 order.