ALL PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P9 which attempted unification of wages as applicable to the Truck Drivers in all the units of the respondent Oil Company at Udayamperoor, Karimugal, Chelayur, Irumpanam, Kanjikode, Kazhakkoottam and Thaliparamba. Petitioners are transporters who have been awarded the work of transportation of empty cylinders to and filled cylinders from the bottling plant of Kazhakkoottam. It is submitted that for the last three weeks there has been no transportation effected and that the plant is virtually shut down due to the unification of wages attempted and the consequential claim raised for the enhanced wages.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they stand on a different footing, from the transporters in the other Units, since the rates agreed upon in Ext.P1 contract for Kazhakkoottam, is the lowest. There was a dispute with respect to the wages, raised by the 2nd respondent Union, which was amicably settled as per Ext.P3. After that, a unification was attempted by the Additional Labour Commissioner, without hearing the petitioners. Ext.P9 was passed enhancing the wages payable to the truck drivers, which effectively would render the contractors without any profit and result in acute loss. It is also contended by the petitioners that they were not participated in the conciliation, which was called for, before Ext.P9 was passed. The petitioners contend that the revision, if at all, to the wages should be with reference to Exhibit P3, the settlement applicable to the particular Unit. There cannot be any unification of wages when the rates payable by the Company to the transporters are not uniform. The wages cannot be divorced from the rates payable to the contractors/petitioners is the compelling argument.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submits that even when Ext.P3 was issued, there was an understanding that there would be unification of wages. It is asserted that there was nothing standing in the way of the contractors from quoting higher amounts when the tenders were invited by the Oil Company. It was also contended that even the rates, as arrived at Ext.P9, is less than that notified by the State of Kerala, as per the Minimum Wages Act. The 2 nd respondent also argues that despite notice, the petitioners had not appeared for the conciliation and they cannot now invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.