ARAVINDAKSHA KURUP Vs. REGHUNATHAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the Labour Court, on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act", is under challenge,

(2.) The petitioner is the establishment, involved in processing and exporting of sea foods, registered under the Factories and Boilers Act, 1947. The activity of the petitioner includes procurement of raw fish from different sources, processing and preserving them for the purpose of export in accordance with orders. In the course of such activity, it utilises insulated vehicles for transporting the processed articles. It owns vehicles for such purpose. Respondents 1 to 4 were employed with the petitioner as drivers of such vehicles. They have, later on, left the services and are employed elsewhere.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the nature of its activity depends upon the international market and the insulated vehicles may not be put to use at all times and it would depend upon the work-load. Similar other exporters also have such type of activities. Depending upon the nature of the urgent requirements of the different persons in the said field of business, the petitioner as well as the other exporters often lend the insulated vehicles, among themselves, to meet the eventuality of emergent requirements. In such situations, to keep up the costs of maintaining the vehicle and other incidentals, certain hire charges are levied on fellow industrial establishments, as evidenced by Ext.Pl series.