IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 12497 of 2004(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- QUILON HOTEL & TEA SHOP WORKERS UNION(INTUC), RE[P. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, G.JAYAPRAKASH, REGD. NO.204/76, JETTY ROAD, KOLLAM - 1. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. 2. PARVATHI MILLS, KOLLAM REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN FOR R2 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R2 SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K FOR R2 SRI.SANDEEP.E. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 17.1.2004 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN I.D.NO. 30/1998 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 12497 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 award by which Industrial Tribunal declined to answer the reference made by Government to settle the dispute between the petitioner-Union and the second respondent-company. Petitioner is the Union of the employees of the Hotel and Tea Shop Workers at Quilon. The employees involved are contract employees engaged by canteen contractor in the canteen run by the second respondent for their employees. Petitioner's case is that canteen space, maintenance and other facilities are provided by the ; second respondent and therefore the Tribunal should have directed the second respondent to regularise employees engaged in the canteen run for the company. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. I do not find any justification to entertain the argument of the petitioner because even though infrastructure facilities are provided by the company, which probably it is bound to do under the provisions of the 2 Factories Act, it cannot be said that the contract arrangement for running the canteen involves any appointment of employees by the company. Admittedly second respondent has not appointed any of the canteen workers who are appointed and removed at the discretion of the contractor who is running the canteen. In my view, the request of the petitioner is nothing but a direction to the second respondent company to absorb in service the employees of the canteen engaged by the contractor who is running it. I do not know under what provision such an order can be passed by the Industrial Tribunal or even this Court. W.P. is therefore de void of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3