MONTHLY RATED WORKMEN OF PEIREE LESLIE AND CO Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE CHIEF CONCILIATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - The Cochin Commercial Employees Association is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act. The petitioner claims that an overwhelming majority of the monthly paid workman employed at the Cochin Office of the Fourth respondent - Messrs Pierce Leslie & Co. Limited - are members of the Association, and that for a long tome the petitioner was representing the monthly paid employees of the Company at their Cochin Office including Willingdon Island for the purpose of collective bargaining The petitioner stales that there was a settlement, between the fourth respondent and the monthly paid workmen of the Cochin office represented by the petitioner, of certain disputes in the year 1961 and that as soon as the period of the settlement was over, a notice WHS served upon the fourth respondent by the petitioner intimating the intention to terminate the settlement, and that thereafter the petitioner had served a charter of demands upon the fourth respondent Company demanding better terms and conditions of service including the revision of existing salary scales and the rate of dearness allowance. As the fourth respondent was not prepared to consider the demands of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the third respondent, the Deputy Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer requesting him to intervene and initiate conciliation proceedings with a view to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the dispute. On 21-4-1964 the fourth respondent sent a letter to the petitioner informing if that the fourth respondent has authorised the West Coast Employers Federation, of which the fourth respondent was a member to represent it in the negotiation. The petitioner alleges that in the meanwhile the fourth respondent carried on negotiations with the Mercantile Employees Association, Calicut, a registered trade union consisting of the employees of the fourth respondent Company employed in Calicut and other places as its members On the 13th May 1964 the petitioner wrote a letter to the first respondent, the Labour Commissioner and the Chief Conciliation Officer, for the State of Kerala, requesting him not to be party to any settlement that the fourth respondent may enter into with any Union other than the petitioner. A copy of this letter was forwarded to The fourth respondent.

(2.) On 23-7-1964 the third respondent issued a notice under S.12 of thee Indus trial Disputes Act 1947. declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings to settle the dispute between the fourth respondent and the monthly paid employees of the fourth respondent represented by the petitioner and proposing to hold a joint conference on 31-7-1904 in respect of the dispute relating to the bonus for the year 1963-64. The fourth respondent raised certain objections to the third respondent initialing conciliation proceedings The third respondent thereafter did not hold any conciliation conference as intimated by him.

(3.) As the third respondent did not move further in the matter the petitioner served a notice of strike on the fourth respondent Ext. P12 is a copy of the letter intimating the first respondent about it. On 3-10-1964 the first respondent issued notices to the fourth respondent the petitioner and the Mercantile Employees Association intimating them his intention to hold a conference of the parties regarding the demands of the petitioner in respect of bonus, revision of wages, dearness allowance, etc The representatives of the fourth respondent and the petitioner were present on 19th October 1961 at the office of the first respondent in pursuance to the notices But the conference was postponed to a subsequent dale. On 24-10-1964 the first respondent issued another notice fixing a conference on 18-11-1964 at Alwaye. But on 18-11-1964 the petitioner received a telegram purporting to have been sent be the first respondent cancelling the conference.