IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20246 of 2009(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. COCHIN REFINERY WORKERS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.7-82/91, VPPI/427, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI- 682 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.RAMASWAMY PILLAI. 2. REFINERY EMPLOYEES UNION, REG.NO. 7/01/2002, KOCHI REGINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, S.N.NAZEEMUDEEN. BY ADVS. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD. 3. BPCL-KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI-02, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HR. R1 & R2 BY MR. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL R3 BY ADV. MR. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC, BPCL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.19067 OF 2009 AND WPC. NO.20854 OF 2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19067, 20246, & 20854 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in these cases. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since there is a separate contention in relation to the locus standi of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19067/09, I will deal with W.P.(C).No.20246/09, as the leading case. W.P.(C).No.20246/09 3. The petitioners are registered trade unions representing workers of Cochin Refineries in various departments, including fire and safety. On 27.11.2006 Ext.P1, a tripartite conciliation settlement was entered into between Kochi Refineries and two trade unions, then in existence fixing the strength of Fire Crew in the Fire and Safety Department as 76. The man power was to be deployed in fire station Nos.1 and 2. In Clause 1 W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases. :: 2 :: of the settlement it was agreed that man power is meant for deployment in fire station No.1 as well as fire station No.2 and to operate the additional pump houses that may be put up. It seems that additional pump houses were not put up, but the management proceeded to shut down fire station No.2 as well. Fire station crew was reduced from 76 to 64, after shutting down fire station No.2. Ext.P2 shift schedule has been published by the management. In Ext.P2 nothing is stated about Fire Station No.2. 4. The petitioners contend that this exercise was in violation of the terms of the settlement and separate dispute has been raised as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 complaints before the 2nd respondent Joint Labour Commissioner. 5. No action has been forthcoming on Exts.P3 and P4 and hence the writ petition praying for the following reliefs: W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases. :: 3 :: a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to maintain Fire Station Nos.1 and 2 with fire crew strength as 76 as provided in Ext.P1 settlement. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 or initiate proceedings against the 3rd respondent for offences under Sections 29 and 31 of the ID Act for having violated Ext.P1 settlement and Section 9 A read with section 33(1) (a) of the ID Act, 1947 and c) Issue such other writ, order and directions as are deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Similar contentions have been raised in W.P.(C)No.20854 and 19607/09. 7. It is now admitted that the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner had occasion to consider the issue and conciliation conference is pending on the same issue. It seems that the conciliation proceedings are afoot. W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases. :: 4 :: 8. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19067/09 are concerned, there is a contention by the management that the first petitioner therein is an unrecognized one and would be competent only to agitate individual cases, if at all and would not be competent to take up general issues. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the action of the management invites a penalty in terms of Sections 29 and 31 of the ID Act. 9. The management does not stand in way of conciliation conference being convened or conciliation proceedings finalized. 10. Much of the controversy is centered around whether the reduction of the man power in the Fire and Safety Department from 76 to 64 amounts to change in the conditions of service within the meaning of Section 33 of the ID Act read with the 4th schedule and Section 9 A of the ID Act. W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases. :: 5 :: 11. I heard Mr.P.Ramakrishnan, Mr.K.S.Madhusoodanan and Mr.D.Anil Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel for respondents . 12. Mr.Madhusoodanan makes a reference to items 10 and 11 in the 4th schedule of ID Act, which refers to the reduction of man power deployed by the management. According to him, therefore, reduction of the number of staff in the Fire and Safety Department from 76 to 64 is not only violation in terms of the settlement but also amounts to violation of Section 9A of the ID Act. 13. Mr.Nandakumar submits that it is a moot question as to whether reduction of man power amounts to change in the settlement. At any rate, Section 33 of the ID Act provides that any complaint regarding the alleged change in the conditions of service would also be a subject matter of a conciliation or W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases. :: 6 :: subject matter of adjudication, as the case may be, in terms of Section 33A of the ID Act. I find force in this submission. 14. In my view, the question as to whether the reduction of the man power in the Fire and Safety Department amounts to violation or change in the conditions is also a matter that will have to be considered by the conciliation officer and could therefore, become an industrial dispute, if the conciliation conference ends in failure. But there is no reason why the conciliation proceedings should be delayed indefinitely. 15. The question as to whether the action taken by the management in reducing the man power would amount to breach of the settlement and therefore, would invite a penalty in terms of Sections 29 and 31 of the Act is also a matter that has to be decided by the conciliation officer. W.P.(C).No.19067 /09 & Con. Cases. :: 7 :: 16. In the result, the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner shall proceed with the conciliation conference arising from the dispute raised by the petitioners and complete the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. It is made clear that the conciliation officer shall bear in mind the observations made in this judgment and his report should refer to the contentions raised by the unions and the management in this regard. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge