IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19656 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE KERALA STATE EX-SERVICE MEN INDUSTRIAL WORKERS CONFEDERATION (INTUC), DISTRICT COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY P.R.HARIKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTORATRE GENERAL RE-SETTLEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICE MEN WELFARE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA WEST BLOCK-4, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOME DISTRICT ALAPPUZHA 3. COL/RTD., V.K.NAIR, K.N.SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICE PVT.LTD., ROOM NO.7/432-B, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, COCHIN, PIN.682 030. 4. L+CDR, N.C.SEKHAR, SUN SHIVE SECURITY SERVICE, ROOM NO.1427-E KOLAVELI SHOPPING CENTRE, SWARAJ NAGAR, KAKKANADU, COCHIN-682030 5. THE ASST.LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 5 SRI. MATHEW K. PHILIP – SC BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.19656 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Union of workers employed as Security Guards by the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P2, the BSNL decided to reduce the number of Security Guards in Exchanges of less than 5K. As a result, the services of some of the Security Guards are liable to be discontinued. In view of the impending discontinuance of their service, the petitioner Union raised an Industrial Dispute which is being adjudicated by the 5th respondent. A conciliation meeting has been convened by issuing Ext.P5 notice, in which both the Union and the management were appraised of their obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act, while the conciliation proceedings are pending. In paragraph 3 of Ext.P5 it was stated thus: “In this connection, your attention is invited to the obligations imposed by Section 22(1) (d) (for workmen), Section 22(2)(d)(for Employer) and Section 33(for employer) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”. W.P.(c0No.19656/08 2 2. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that in view of the above statement in Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent cannot now dispense with the services of the Security Guards represented by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the implementation of Ext.P2 strictly in compliance with Ext.P5 order issued by the 5 th respondent. ii. Call for the records relating to Exhibit P2 and quash the same by the issuance of the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the BSNL would submit that the Security Guards are not directly employed by the BSNL. Engagement of Security Guards in the BSNL is governed by orders issued by the Central Government. The BSNL engages only contractors who supplies the Security Guards as per requirement of the BSNL. The period of contract is also stipulated by the Government Orders. Therefore, when the period of contract expires, the Security Guards employed by the Contractor should also leave the establishment automatically. He would further submit that it is W.P.(c0No.19656/08 3 entirely for the BSNL to decide as to how many Security Guards are to be employed in their various offices. Neither the contractor nor the petitioner Union can dictate as to the number of Security Guards to be employed. He would further submit that similar writ petitions by Security Guards have been dismissed by this Court and therefore, the issue involved is squarely covered by those decisions. He refers to the latest decision in W.P.(C)No.18861/08, wherein following the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.19128/2006 and 17062/08 that writ petition has been dismissed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am not going into the issues raised by the parties in this writ petition since it is not necessary to deal with the same for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. The petitioner's only claim is based on paragraph 3 of Ext.P5 quoted above. The petitioner's remedy in respect of violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is also prescribed by the Act itself in Section 33A, wherein the petitioner has to file a complaint in writing to the Conciliation Officer, who shall take such complaint into account in mediating and permitting the settlement of the industrial disputes. For this, the petitioenr W.P.(c0No.19656/08 4 has to file a complaint before the conciliation officer himself. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take recourse Section 33A(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, this writ petition is closed without going into the merits of the rival contentions. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c0No.19656/08 5