KERALA STATE ELECY BOARD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KERALA State Electricity Board is the petitioner, Board challenges Ext. P5 order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam impleading the Board as an additional party in the array of management in Industrial Dispute No. 33 of 1986.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for understanding the dispute raised in the Original Petition are as follows: - Second respondent was a licensee for distribution of electrical energy in Mattancherry area. Erstwhile Government of Cochin by notification dated November 12, 1929 granted the company the right of distribution of electrical energy for a period of fifty years. Respondent No. 3 and one C. K. Hariharan, whose legal representatives are respondents 4 to 8, were employees of the company. On the expiry of the period of licence granted to the second respondent, the Kerala State Electricity Board under Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act gave notice to the licensee to sell the undertaking to it. In the process of the purchase, there were discussions regarding the future service conditions of the employees engaged by the licensee. As a result of that prolonged discussion, it was agreed that only those employees who opted to come to the service of the Electricity Board from among those employees who have not attained the age of 55 as on November 11, 1979 and those who were in the rolls of the second respondent-company on or before August 24, 1978 if willing to work under the Board, will be taken over by the Board. Accordingly, the Board prescribed option forms and declaration forms of the employees who wish to come under the service of the Board. A total number of 111 employees submitted their options showing their willingness to come under the service of the Board. Third respondent and Sri C. K. Hariharan did not opt to come under the service of the Board. This is because Sri Hariharan had already completed the age of 55 years on the date of purchase by the petitioner and Sri Chellappan Pillai had less than a month to attain the age of 55 years on the date of the take over. Deceased Hariharan and third respondent then approached the Labour Court by moving a petition under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming retrenchment compensation from the second respondent-company. Labour Court dismissed that petition, directing the petitioners before it to raise the industrial dispute against the company. Thereupon third respondent and deceased Hariharan filed petitions before the Deputy Labour Officer, Ernakulam for realising the retrenchment compensation from the second respondent-company. Since no settlement was arrived at, the matter was reported to the Government. Consequently, the Government referred the matter for adjudication by the first respondent-Labour Court. The issue referred was:

(3.) THIRD respondent Sri S. Chellappan Pillai and late Sri C. K. Hariharan approached the Labour Officer for getting retrenchment compensation from the second respondent on account of the denial of employment. These employees had no case that they got any right against the Kerala State Electricity Board. They were the employees of the second respondent and second respondent alone. All the employees of the second respondent were not taken over by the Electricity Board when it took over the business. Only those employees who opted to come to the service of the Electricity Board from among those who had not completed the age of 55 as on November 11, 1979 and who were on the rolls for the second respondent-company on or before August 24, 1978 came under the service of the Board. Sri Hariharan had completed the age of 55 long prior to November 11, 1979. In the case of Chellappan Pillai, he had only less than a month to attain the age of 55 as on November 11, 1979 because his date of birth is December 1, 1924. Sri Hariharan and Shri Chellappan Pillai did not opt to come under the Board. Therefore Hariharan and Chellappan Pillai did not have any right as against the Board. They approached the authorities for getting retrenchment compensation from the second respondent company. According to them, the second respondent alone was their employer. In such a situation can the Labour Court implead the Board and enlarge the scope of reference?