IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1188 of 2009(R) ---------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 24729/2006] REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENSTS 1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,BPL & PSP WORKERS UNION, (CITU),METTUPALAYAM STREET,PALAKKAD.OPERATOR BPL LTD. 2. THE SECRETARY,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES MASDOOR SANGHAM(BMS), BPL,UNIT PALAKKAD. 3. THE SECRETARY,BPL EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC),CHITTUR ROAD,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 30 ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR PERSONAL OFFICER, BPL GROUPS OF COMPANIES,BPL,TELECOM(P)LTD, BST LTD,KOOTTUPATHA,CHANDRA NAGAR.P.O, PALAKKAD. 2. CERTIFYING OFFICER UNDER INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS)ACT 1946, DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS)ACT 1946, REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. DEVAKI.M,OPERATOR,BPL TELECOM(P)LTD, PALAKKAD. 5. CHANDRAN.V,SUPERVISOR, BPL TELECOM(P)LTD. 6. PAUL.D,S/O.DEVASSY,OPERATOR, BPL TELECOM(P)LTD,PALAKKAD. 7. T.S.SARADA DEVI,W/O.VISWANATHAN, OPERATOR,BPL TELECOM(P)LTD. 8. ABDUL KADIR.M,S/O.K.V.MUHAMMED, SENIOR STENOGRAPHER,BPL TELECOM(P)LTD. 9. SURENDRAN.M,S/O.P.K.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, JUNIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT BPL LTD. 10. SANJEEV KUMAR.T,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ELECTRICIAN BPL LTD,PALAKKAD. 11. VINOD KUMAR.K.P,S/O.KUNHAPPU,FOREMAN (GRADE) BPL LTD,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES,PVT.LTD) 12. CHANDRAN.P,S/O.PALI,FOREMAN(GRADE) BPL LTD,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES,PVT.LTD) 13. MRS.ALPHONSA.V.K,W/O.JOHN, OPERATOR,BPL TELECOM PRIVATE LTD. 14. V.CHANDRAN,S/O.VELAYUDHAN,OPERATOR BPL LTD,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES,PVT.LTD). 15. K.GOPALAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, FOREMAN (GRADE)BPL LTD,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES, PVT.LTD) 16. VIJAYAN.P.R,S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN MANNADIAR, OPERATOR,BPL TELECOM PRIVATE LTD. 17. C.UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O.T.SANKARAN NAIR, SUPERIVISOR (GRADE)BPL LTD,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD) 18. K.C.MOHANDAS,S/O.CHAMIAR,SUPERVISOR, BPL LTD. 19. N.NARAYANAN,OPERATOR(GRADE)BPL LTD, (N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD). 20. SUDEVAN.V,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MACHINE OPERATOR,BPL TELECOM(P)LTD, PALAKKAD. 21. SWARNAKUMARI.P,W/O.KRISHNAN,WIRER ASSEMBLER,BPL LTD,PALAKKAD-25. 22. VALSALAKUMARI.E,W/O.P.R.SUDEVAN, OPERATOR,BPL,LTD,PALAKKAD. 23. ABDUL HAKKEEM.A,S/O.ATHAR RAWTHER, OPERATOR,BPL TELECOM (P)LTD. 24. V.CHANDRA MOHAN,S/O.KRISHNAMENON, OPERATOR,BPL LTD,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES,PVT.LTD) MOOTEDATH HOUSE,VELIKKAD POST,MUNDUR,PALAKKAD. 25. VASUAMATHY.G,W/O.VESUKUTTAN, OPERATOR BPL TELECOM LTD. 'VOLGA',ALAMPALLAM, CHANDRANAGAR,PALAKKAD-7. 26. SETHUMADHAVAN.C,S/O.LATE T.VISWANATHAN NAIR,OPERATOR,BPL LTD,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES, PVT.LTD)CHEMMALA HOUSE,ODANUR,PARALI(PO), PALAKKAD. 27. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN.T,S/O.THEETHAN, OPERATOR,BPL LTD.,(N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES,PVT.LTD) VALEKKAD HOUSE,NOCHIPPULLY(PO),PALAKKAD-678 592. 28. KALYANIKUTTY,W/O.RAMADAS,FORMAN, BPL LTD,'RAJEEVAM',VENOLI ROAD, KALLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD-5. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. ADV. SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR. SRI. A.R. GANGADAS. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 1188 of 2009 in W. P (C) No. 24729 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th December, 2009. O R D E R The petitioners in this review petition are the contesting respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by me relying on the clauses in settlements entered into between the parties, which proscribe raising of any dispute in respect of matters covered by those settlements during the currency of those settlements. The ground raised in this review petition is that there was, in fact, a subsequent settlement, which has not been brought to the notice of this Court , which permits raising of a dispute regarding change of retirement age and therefore the earlier settlements are not a bar to the petitioners in the review petition for filing an application for modification of the standing orders seeking raising of the retirement age. They also contend that it was the duty of the management to bring that fact to the attention of this Court and by suppressing the same, they have misled this Court . 2. I have heard the parties. 3. From the settlement now produced Ext. R1(a), I find that the same is dated 3-6-2004. The petitioners filed the applications for modification of the standing orders regarding raising of retirement age on 29-8-2003 and 15-9-2003 by Exts.P5 and P6. Going by those dates, at the time when the unions filed Exts.P5 and P6, the earlier settlements were in force and therefore the unions could not have validly filed the application for modification of the standing orders. Although the settlement now relied on by the petitioners in the review petition came into being prior to passing of orders pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 application, it remains a fact that Exts.P5 and P6 applications were filed at a time when there was a bar in filing the same. R.P. No. 1188/09 -: 2 :- According to me, the remedy of the petitioners was to file a fresh application for modification after the settlement came into force. 4. The petitioners raise another contention that this Court relied upon the fact that as per the standing orders, the workers were liable to be transferred to Bangalore unit and therefore if the retirement age of units are different, that may result in anomalous situation. They contend that all units at Bangalore are now closed and therefore there is no question of transfer from Palakkad to Bangalore. The contention is that, in such a situation, that reasoning is also liable to be reviewed. I am of opinion that that is also a situation which arose subsequent to the passing of the impugned orders and therefore that cannot govern the issue involved in the writ petition. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the review petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, I make it clear that this is without prejudice to the right of the parties to approach the authorities appropriately in accordance with the changed circumstances. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.