IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6306 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY,C.P.S.A. OFFICE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 009. BY ADV. MR.N.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN POSRT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-9. 2. COCHIN PORT REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTDON ISLAND, KOCHI-9. 3. THE CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, KOCHI-9. 4. THE MECHANICAL SUPERINTENDENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND,HARBOUR WORKSHOP, KOCHI-3. 5. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIOINER,(CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN,KAKKANAD,COCHIN 682 030. BY ADV. MR. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC, CPT R5 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6306 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a major union of the Cochin Port employees. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the Management in enhancing the working hours of the workers in the Mechanical Department of the Cochin Port Trust. The enhancement in working hours has been made by the Medical Superintendent and the Chief Mechanical Engineer. According to the petitioner, the union has raised an industrial dispute with respect to which, conciliation proceedings have been initiated by the 5th respondent Regional Labour Commissioner(Central) as I.D.No.2(15)/2009-B1. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the industrial dispute has not been finalised yet, the management is bound to maintain the status quo till a final decision in the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner relies on Section-33 and Section-22 (2)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to contend that the service conditions of the workers shall wpc No.6306/2010 2 remain unaltered during the pendency of the dispute. Therefore, it is submitted that the enhancement in working hours amounts to a variation in the service conditions of the workmen which is impermissible in law. The petitioner, therefore seeks the intervention of this Court in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr.Benny Thomas who appears for the Management submits that the decision to enhance the working hours has already been implemented without any protest from the workmen. The change in working hours had to be effected consequent to the implementation of the computerisation programme or ERP & SAP. It is denied that the working hours of the workmen have been enhanced. 3. I do not want to go into the merits of the rival contentions raised in this Writ Petition since the matter is pending before the 5th respondent in conciliation. The petitioner can raise all his contentions before the 5th respondent who is empowered to pass necessary orders in this regard, if there has actually been an enhancement in wpc No.6306/2010 3 working hours, in violation of law. 4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioner in this Writ Petition also in the conciliation proceedings that are pending before him with respect to the dispute between the petitioner and the Cochin Port Trust and to take necessary action thereon as enjoined by law, as expeditiously as possible. The Management shall also co-operate with the conciliation proceedings so as to arrive at a proper resolution of the disputes in the shortest possible time. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/