IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6698 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- 1. COCHIN THURAMUGHA THOZHILALLI UNION (CTTU), AFFILIATED TO ALL INDIA PORT & DOCK WORKERS FEDERATION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, V.H.SHAHABUDDIN, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN. 2. COCHIN PORT & DOCK EMPLOYEES UNION (AITUC), AFFILIATED TO THE PORT, DOCK & WATER FRONT WORKERS FEDERATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, M.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.MOHAMED YOUSEFF, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.M.P.SEETHA SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 009. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 009. 3. THE TRAFFIC MANAGER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 009. 4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERINTENDENT DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 003. 5. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 021. 6. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER & LABOUR INSPECTOR (CENTRAL), KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 021. WP(C).No. 6698 of 2009(F) 7. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING AND SURFACE TRANSPORT, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1-4 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1-4 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1-4 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1-4 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1-4 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R5 TO R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 6705 OF 2009 THE COURT ON 02/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6698 of 2009(F) APPENDIX EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 6/6/1994 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAGE REVISION, ETC. SIGNED ON 02/08/2000 WITH EFFECT FROM 1/1/97. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED SCHEME GOVERNING THE PAYMENT OF WAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 7/1/2009 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6/2/2009 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 12/2/2009 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 13/2/2009 TO EXT.P6 MEMO. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 17/2/2009 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19/2/2009 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DISPUTE SUBMITTED BY THE SHURAMUGHA THOZHILALI UNION TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER. EXT.P10(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DISPUTE DATED 21/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE COCHIN PORT AND DOCK EMPLOYEES' UNION BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2009 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/02/2009 \\TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.6698/2009-F & 6705/2009-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT These two writ petitions have been filed at the instance of two trade unions representing workers of the Cochin Port Trust. The circumstances leading to the dispute are the following: 2. The first respondent is directly employing dock workers for the dock work coming under the purview of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health & Welfare) Act. Earlier the Dock Labour Board was exercising its powers in regard to various aspects regarding the dock workers till 6.6.1994. Subsequently, the Dock Labour Board merged with the Cochin Port Trust. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Settlement was arrived at as per Ext.P1 dated 6.6.1994 between the management and various labour unions at the instance of the 5th respondent Regional Labour Commissioner who conciliated with the parties concerned. The settlement contained various clauses like wage revision, conditions of service of Port and Dock workers, etc. The said settlement expired on 31.12.1997 and thereafter the Government of India, Ministry of Surface wpc 6698 & 6705/2009 2 Transport, constituted a bipartite Wage Negotiation Committee which consisted of representatives of the management and representatives of Port and Dock workers. Accordingly, a settlement was arrived at as per Ext.P2 regarding the conditions of service, wage revision and retirement benefits, etc. It is contended that clause 36 refers to existing benefits. 3. There are about 246 permanent workers included in the muster roll of the composite gang and they are members of different trade unions. The writ petitions concern challenge against Ext.P4 circular dated 7.1.2009 issued by the second respondent introducing the Access Control System for admitting the workers to certain sections in the Cochin Port Trust including the Dock Labour Division as well. It is pointed out that the trade unions opposed the proposal, especially the linking of the Access Control System to the Pay Roll of the workers. In fact, all the trade unions agreed to introduce Access Control System in all other divisions or sections of the Cochin Port Trust. It is stated that subsequent meetings were held and since no consensus was arrived at, Exts.P5 and P6 representations were submitted to the Chairman. But still, the management continued with the introduction of the system and memos were issued to workers who violated the circular. Again, Ext.P8 circular was issued informing that it has been decided to strictly enforce and regulate attendance through the swiping system from the first shift wpc 6698 & 6705/2009 3 of 19.2.2009 and that the Access Control system will be linked with the pay roll of the workers. This was objected to by the petitioners by submitting further representations. 4. Since no settlement could be arrived at, the petitioners have approached the Regional Labour Commissioner, the 5th respondent by raising a dispute. Even though some conferences have been held, no consensus could be arrived at. The petitioners have approached this court contending that since the respondents are adopting a recalcitrant attitude and as the workers are being threatened and as they apprehend police action in the matter, this court’s interference is warranted. 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that it is purely an industrial dispute and as the matter is being considered by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner by convening conferences, at this stage the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs in these writ petitions. 6. The objection appears to be sustainable. The Conciliation Officer is already in seisin of the matter. He has invoked his powers under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, especially Section 11 of the Act. If the Conciliation conferences fail, then he will have to submit a failure report and appropriate actions will follow as enjoined by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Scheme under the wpc 6698 & 6705/2009 4 Act provides for effective remedy which is not inadequate, I am of the view that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised at this stage. 7. The main contentions raised by the petitioners relate to the alleged violation of the settlement and the respective rights of various workers represented by the trade unions to enforce the terms of the settlement. The main reliefs sought for are also for a declaration regarding the rights of those workers to enjoy certain benefits. In that view of the matter also, it is purely under the realm of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the conciliation machinery has already been put into motion, the writ petitions are premature. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue their remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/