SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P8 and to direct the 2nd respondent to refer the issue regarding retrenchment compensation, notice pay and gratuity to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam.

(2.) PETITIONER is the General Secretary of Kerala Cashewnut Workers Federation, which is a registered trade union. The 3rd respondent purchased P. K. D. Cashew Factory, Eravipuram belonging to M/s. Bakul Cashew Company on March 18, 1981 as a going concern and undertook to employ all the workers with continuity of service with all past liabilities. As per Ext. P1 Memorandum of Settlement, the 3rd respondent undertook the liability in respect of the workmen and staff under the predecessor management. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued Ext. P2 notice. The workmen had put in 27 years' of service in M/s. Bakul Cashew Company. As the wages for the year 1981 fell due, the workers struck work. Ultimately, the dispute was settled by Ext. P3 agreement. The 3rd respondent agreed to clear the wage arrears on or before December 6, 1982. But the 3rd respondent denied employment to the workers by keeping the company idle from December 3, 1982 to July 31, 1984. Therefore, the company was taken over by the 4th respbndent, Kerala State Cashew Workers Apex Industrial Cooperative Society, "capex". The 3rd respondent owns another factory at Kaithakuzhi. According to the petitioner, the cashewnuts allotted to the 3rd respondent were diverted by him to the Kaithakuzhi factory, which continued functioning. Petitioner issued Ext. P4 notice demanding retrenchment compensation, wages etc. The 3rd respondent refused, whereupon the dispute was conciliated upon. The 3rd respondent agreed to reopen the factory and pay the entitled dues to the workers. But he evaded from doing it. The Government then took over the factory, as per the provisions of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 and entrusted the same to the 4th respondent. After the take over of the factory by the 4th respondent, the petitioner again represented to the 4th respondent, demanding the above benefits. By Ext. P5 the Government of Kerala referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. The issues referred for adjudication were:

(3.) THE first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam had adjudicated the dispute and passed an award directing the 3rd respondent to pay full wages for the period of closure of the factory from December 3, 1982 to July 27, 1984. Petitioner filed a complaint to the District Labour Officer demanding notice pay to the workmen for the illegal closure of the factory, retrenchment compensation and gratuity including those workers who had already retired or been retrenched or died. The Government examined the matter and referred the dispute for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award. The claim for retrenchment compensation and gratuity to the workers was rejected by the Labour Court, P. K. D. Company was acquired by the Government and all the workers are statutorily transferred to CAPEX, without any break in service and hence there is no termination of service to warrant payment of retrenchment compensation. Moreover, the workmen had filed a claim petition before the Labour Court and the Labour Court rejected the same.