BURMAH SHELL WORKERS UNIONERNAKULAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the Burmah Shell Workers Union Ernakulam, praying for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing an order of the Government of Kerala dated 21-8-1957 Ext. J. referring the disputes mentioned therein for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Labour Court from proceeding with the enquiry. The first respondent is the State of Kerala, the 2nd respondent, the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited, Ernakulam, the 3rd respondent T.K. Rajan, Secretary, Burmah Shell Temporary Workers Action Committee, and the 4th respondent the presiding officer, Labour Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) The facts stated in the petitioners affidavit may be briefly stated:

(3.) The second respondent, the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited, supports the petitioner and contends that the petitioner is the only Union recognised by the management and that there is no other union or body which has officially or unofficially reported about its existence to the Company. The agreements, Exts. D and E, were arrived at and the lists finalised as a result of several conciliation conferences convened by the Labour Department of the State. All the agreements entered into by the Union were accepted by the temporary workmen without demur. The 2nd respondent also questioned the right of Mr. M M. Abdulkader and T. K. Rajan to represent the temporary workmen. All the workmen on whose behalf the reference is seen to have been made were members of the Union at the time Exts. D and E were entered into and they are bound by the same. Out of the forty-three workmen only sixteen have been retrenched and eight of them have accepted retrenchment compensation in full and final settlement. Thus there are only eight who have not accepted retrenchment compensation and they are not entitled to raise an industrial dispute individually. The second respondent attended the conciliation conferences preceding the reference, and took exception to a legal practitioner representing parties in such conferences. This objection was overruled by the District Labour Officer, who chose to hear the legal practitioner.