IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 19791 of 2004(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.P.CHERIYAN, CO-OWNER, SULTHANA ESTATE, KERALA ESTATE P.O., KALIKAVU (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.MITHUN MARKOS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, ERNAD PLANTATION LABOUR UNION (CITU), P.O.NILAMBUR - 679 329. 2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, ERNAD TALUK ESTATE, LABOUR CONGRESS, (INTUC), NILAMBUR. 3. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 27.8.2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL WAGE BOARD FOR RUBBER PLANTATION INDUSTRY DATED 29.9.1966 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE STATE LEVEL CONCILIATORY BODY IN KERALA NAMELY THE PLANTATION LABOUR COMMITTEE DATED 15TH DECEMBER, 1966 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 21.11.2002 OF THE UNIONS EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 31.1.2003 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF SCHEME FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 26.8.2003 ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION THERETO. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.3.2003 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 17005 OF 2001 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 1.12.2003 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.19791 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised is whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in rejecting petitioner's request for increasing the number of trees to be tapped by a tapper per day from 350 to 400. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even though respondents received notice, there is no appearance for the Union. However, on going through the Tribunal's order and after hearing counsel for the petitioner, we do not feel justified in accepting the claim of the petitioner to increase the number of trees to be tapped by a tapper per day to 400. Therefore we proceed to dispose of the WPC without issuing fresh notice to respondents. 2. It is seen from Tribunal's order that Tribunal has considered the management's claim with reference to the Wage Board Report and the Inspection Report submitted by the Management and the oral 2 evidence given by parties, including that of Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner of the Rubber Board. The data furnished in the award of the Tribunal shows that petitioner's plantation is very old and planting was done during the years 1973, 1978, 1980 and 1984. It is common knowledge that economic life of rubber plantation particularly new clones of rubber is around 20 years. Except for a small extent of 0.8 hectares, the entire plantation is 24 to 30 years old as of now. Obviously the plantation will be either under slaughter tapping, if not at least partially replanted. Slaughter tapping is different from normal tapping because it is high level tapping and rubber latex is extracted through two grooves as against normal extraction of latex through one groove. Terms for slaughter tapping is therefore entirely different from normal tapping charges paid. Considering subsequent developments we feel management should be given freedom to negotiate with the labour unions for fixing fresh terms of tapping. In fact even after rejecting petitioner's claim the Tribunal has left open to the management to bring up the matter if there is change in conditions. In view of the present condition of the Estate as stated above, we feel 3 the dispute between the management and the Union has become academic. We therefore vacate the order of the Tribunal leaving the parties to negotiate and arrive at a settlement to meet the present needs. We also leave open all issues raised by the management to be decided at appropriate time. WP. is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4