RUBBER WOOD INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. MANOJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions; W.P.(C)No.8441/2020 titled as Rubber Board, Kottayam Vs. Manoj Kumar P.S. and others (hereinafter called ('first writ petition') and W.P.(C)No.5187/2020 preferred by Rubber Wood India Private Limited and others Vs. Manoj Kumar P.S. and others (hereinafter called 'second writ petition') with the following prayers: Prayers in W.P.(C)No.8441/2020 (first petition):

(2.) It is pertinent to mention here that by virtue of a proceeding initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench in CP(IB)/26/KOB/2022 initiated under Sec. 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 an Interim Resolution Professional namely Mr.Renehan Vamakesan represented by Mr.A.Kevin Thomas and Smt.Nidhi Sam John, vide order dtd. 17/5/2022, has been appointed, thus the petitioner company in W.P(C).5187/2020 is being represented through the aforementioned Interim Resolution Professional. Both the writ petitions involve a common question of fact and law and therefore are being disposed of by the common judgment.

(3.) The first writ petition is on behalf of the Rubber Board established under the Rubber Act, 1947 which falls under the aegis of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. It is aggrieved of the order Ext.P5 dtd. 9/1/2020 of Sec. Officer, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya intimating the reference of dispute under Clause (d) of sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (2A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) whereas the contention is that it has 70% shareholding in the company known as Rubber Wood India Private Limited as evident from the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The pith and substance of the argument of the counsel representing the petitioner is that a Share holder, even if it is Central Government, in a Company established under the Companies Act and if controlled and managed by the Central Government, the share holder cannot be impleaded as a party in a dispute between the employer and employee as there was no relationship of employer and employee; in other words the relationship of employer and employee would be between the Company and the employees. Till issuance of the notice impugned Ext.P5, the name of the petitioner did not figure at any point of time neither in the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer nor in the claim filed by the workmen. This fact is evident from Exts.P2, P3 and P4, copies of the applications submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 10. Receipt of the notice Ext.P5 resulted into a cause of action to approach this Court with the prayer aforementioned.