IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 33478 of 2001(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE GENERAL MANAGER, PRABHURAM MILLS, KOTTA P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT, PRABHURAM MILLS WORKERS FEDERATION (HMS), KOTTA P.O., KARAKKAD, CHENGANNUR. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL.3. E. ABDUL SALAM, SON OF S. ESMAIL PILLAI, SHAHANA, THONNAKKAL P.O., MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 317. ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON CMP 16701 OF 2002 DATED 11.4.2002 R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.K.VINODKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 54678 OF 2001 IN OP 33478 OF 2001 DISMISSED 22.7.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.NO. 4928/A1/95/LBR DATED 4.4.1995 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 30.11.1994 ISSUED BY KELASTIC TAPES UNDER SECTION 9A OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 2.3.1995 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 22.2.1995 BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND UNIONS OF PRABHURAM MILLS WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 3.5.1999 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO. 9/99 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 31.5.1999 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.NO.9/99 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER STATEMENT DATED 2.8.1999 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO.9/99 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 18.9.2000 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO. 9/99 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 28.8.2001 EXT.P9 LIST OF WORKMEN OF KELASTIC TAPES AND KELNIT WHO WERE GIVEN EMPLOYMENT IN PRABHURAM MILLS. EXT.P10 LIST OF PRESENT WORKMEN OF THE SPINNING DEPARTMENT OF PRABHURAM MILLS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 33478 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the third respondent. The award under challenge is Ext.P8 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, directing the petitioner to consider the third respondent for appointment to a suitable post. 2. Third respondent joined the service of the Kerala Textile Corporation, Trivandrum, as a workman in 1980. He was later transferred to Kelastic unit under the Corporation in Alleppey in 1982. When that unit started declining third respondent was shifted to petitioner's unit. However, at the time of shifting, third respondent was working as a Grade I operator in the Kelastic unit at Alleppey. According to counsel for the third respondent, for certain purposes he was treated as a Foreman in that unit. However, when third respondent was shifted to petitioner's unit, he was given the last grade employment of Doffing Boy. The claim of third respondent is that he should get a post comparable to the Grade he was holding in the Kelastic unit at 2 Alleppey wherefrom he was transferred. On a reference of the dispute by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal took evidence and found that persons with similar qualifications have reached the post of Spinning Master in the petitioner's unit whereas third respondent who was transferred after 14 years of service was given last grade employment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that question referred is not the one what is considered by the Industrial Tribunal, and Industrial Tribunal has gone beyond it's power. On the other hand, counsel for the third respondent submitted that Industrial Tribunal has only found that third respondent was entitled to a higher post comparable to the post he was holding in the Alleppey unit. I do not find any justification to interfere with the award because Industrial Tribunal has considered the predicament of the third respondent in comparison to other workers who were working in the petitioner's unit and found that third respondent is entitled to a better position, having regard to his service and technical qualification. Even though O.P. was filed in 2001, no interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation of the Award and the petitioner has not given the benefits to 3 the third respondent. By now third respondent's entitlement would have gone up from the date of award, which was passed 8 years back. All what the Industrial Tribunal has stated that is that third respondent should be given a fair treatment by giving him suitable post, if required by creating a post for him. The directions are perfectly justified, having regard to the service of the third respondent in the unit from where he was transferred and his educational qualification. I therefore dismiss the O.P. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4