COMMERCE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Kerala in the Gazette dated 8th July 1975 published the Award of Arbitrators in respect of a dispute between the petitioner here, the Chamber of Commerce, Trichur and their workmen represented by Trichur Range Gold Workers Union, and the Trichur District Swarna Thozhilali Union, Trichur. The said dispute had been referred for arbitration to the State Arbitration Board by agreement of parties. This was under S.10A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The specific matters in dispute is seen from the charter of demands annexed to the order of reference were the following"

(2.) Considering the materials available in the case the Arbitrators came to the conclusion that there can be no manner of doubt that the relation between dealers and the certified goldsmiths was one of employers and employees and that the latter are workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. After finding this the Arbitrators proceeded to consider the various items of claim. Though 18 items were raised, only 7 seem to have been urged before the Arbitrators. Others were not pressed. Of this the claim relating to Provident Fund, Gratuity and Employees State Insurance was not dealt with on the merits by the Arbitrators as these were found to be governed and regulated by special statutes and hence beyond the purview of the Arbitrators. Regarding the others the claim by the Unions were recognised partially.

(3.) The Chamber of Commerce which is the petitioner in this petition has challenged the Award of the Arbitrators. Earlier there was challenge in this court to the appointment of a fresh set of Arbitrators when the term of the earlier team of Arbitrators expired and that challenge was at the instance of one of the two Unions. This court directed the Government to constitute the earlier set of Arbitrators so that they may continue in office for dealing with the arbitration and accordingly they have dealt with the matter. Parties also agreed that the evidence taken before the reconstitution of the old set of arbitrators may be treated as binding on the parties. Parties are not at issue here on that question and we need not go into that question here.