LISSIE HOSPITAL Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Employer - Lissie Hospital, ie, party No.2 to the Industrial Disputes, No.8 of 2016, by this petition, is challenging the interim order dated 6/02/2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ernakulam, thereby rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the Employer regarding maintainability of the industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, apart from allowing the impleadment application filed by 17 workmen of the petitioner.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employer/party No.2 at sufficient length of time. The learned counsel argued that the appropriate Government ought not to have referred the alleged industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam as the first party to that dispute, namely Lissie Hospital Employees Union was defunct. The said trade union had not filed its return right from the year 1997 and as such was not competent to raise the industrial dispute. As the said Union had lost its capacity to raise industrial dispute way back in the year 1997, its application dated 16/11/2015, Ext. P10 was of no consequence and as such, ought not to have been considered by the appropriate Government for referring the industrial dispute for adjudication. It is further argued that the employer/party No.1 had preferred an application under the Right To Information Act , so also the interim application for directing the party No.2 - Union for producing necessary documents. The Union had admitted in its affidavit that there was no dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the matter falls under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the workmen are seeking impleadment. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/employer, demonstrates that the industrial dispute cannot be validly entertained by the learned Labour Court and as such, preliminary objection of the employer ought to have been upheld by the learned Labour Court. My attention was drawn to the exhibits to the petition, so also the impugned order at Ext.P1 to demonstrate that the learned Labour Court erred in rejecting the preliminary objection and in allowing the application for impleadment filed by the workmen. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner - employer on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Duncans Industries Limited. Kanpur Vs. Presiding Officer reported in 2010 LLR 403, Kerala State Co-operative Employees Front Vs. Chandramathi Amma reported in 1996 (1) KLT 540, so also on Fibre Foam (P) Ltd. Vs. Kannan Nair reported in 1979 KLT 30.

(3.) I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.