IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.8.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.2921 of 2001 Madras Dock Labour Board Employees Progressive Union represented by its Working President Thiru Mahadevan No.92, Cementry Road Royapuram, Chennai-600 013 .. Petitioner vs. 1. Union of India rep. by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Surface Transport Port Department, Transport Bhavan No.1, parliament Street New Delhi-1 2. The Chennai Port Trust rep. by its Chairman Rajaji Salai Chennai-600 001 3. Madras Dock Labour Board rep. by its Chairman Rajaji Salai Chennai-600 001 4. Regional Director Liasian representative Office P and O Australia Ports (P) ltd., Hamilian House N.N.Heraia Marg Ballard Marg, Mumbai-400 038 .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the proceedings issued in No.PD.25021/21/97-MPT, dated 3.7.2000 passed by the Secretary to Government, Ministry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Surface Transport, Department of Shipping, Port Department, Transport Bhavan, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi, the first respondent herein as ultra vires, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the existing provisions of the Constitution of India, and principles of natural justice and to rectify the anomalies created by the proceedings by negotiating with the petitioner union in accordance with the 12(3) Settlement dated 2.8.2000. For petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.M.Devendran for R1 Mr.G.Venkatraman for R3 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of declaration to declare the proceedings issued by the first respondent in No.PD.25021/21/97-MPT, dated 3.7.2000, as ultra vires, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and to rectify the alleged anomalies created by the proceedings by negotiating with the petitioner union, in accordance with the settlement, dated 2.8.2000, concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The main contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Union are that the respondents had opened the doors to the fourth respondent Multinational Company without following the proper modalities and without taking into consideration the manning pattern, the labour standards, the existing welfare schemes and the financial facilities relating to the employees, who were the members of the petitioner Union. The engagement of the fourth respondent Company for the development, management and operations of the Container Terminal at the Chennai Port. This is contrary to the established rules framed under the law of the land and the international standards prescribed by the international labour organisations. 3. It has also been stated that the respondents, while making the contract with the fourth respondent Company, have not taken into account the various statutory scheme framed under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. Substantial financial loss has been caused to the Dock workers as well as the Dock Labour Board due to the non deployment of the dock workers. Further, the impugned order is contrary to the settlement concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed before this Court an unreported decision of this Court, dated 22.2.2001, in Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress (INTUC) Regd.3631, rep. by its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ General Secretary Mr.G.Kalan Vs. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government and others, (W.P.Nos.16845 of 2000 batch) challenging the proceedings No.PD.25021/21/97-MPT, dated 3.7.2000, wherein this Court had concluded as follows: "88. In view of my discussions and conclusions referred to above on the various contentions raised on behalf of all the petitioners in all the writ petitions I hold that all the writ petitions preferred both by the Unions, Port workers as well as the Stevedores and their association are not maintainable, that the various grievances expressed by the different petitioners do not really exist inasmuch as sufficient safeguards have been provided in the guidelines as well as in the Non-negotiable conditions which would ensure that even if there were any grievances as envisaged by the petitioners, in particular the various unions and workmen the same would be sufficiently safeguarded and therefore, there is no scope for considering any of the submissions made at the instance of the petitioners on that basis. Having regard to the stand point of the first and second respondents and the present stage of affairs prevailing pursuant to the issuance of the present proceedings, there is no scope at all for this Court to interdict with the move of the first and second respondents in entrusting the task of development of the container terminal of the second respondent with the fourth respondent. It has to be accepted that the action of the respondents in their attempt to hand over the development of the container terminal to the fourth respondent is in public interest and the advantages that would be gained would enure to the benefit of the public at large and certainly outweigh the grievances of the writ petitioners. 89. In the result, all the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed." 5. In Writ Appeals Nos.1921 and 2029 of 2001, a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 30.11.2001, had upheld the order, dated 22.2.2001, made in Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress (INTUC) Regd.3631, rep. by its General Secretary Mr.G.Kalan Vs. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government and others, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (W.P.Nos.16845 of 2000 batch) confirming the validity of the impugned proceedings, dated 3.7.2000, passed by the Government of India according to which, the Chennai Port Trust was permitted to conclude the contract with P & O Australia Ports Private Limited, for the development, management and operations of the Container Terminal of the Chennai Port. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 30.11.2001, the contract has been given to the fourth respondent Company and the fourth respondent Company has been carrying on the work allotted to it, in accordance with the concluded agreement. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 8. In view of the above said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 30.11.2001, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. To: 1. The Secretary to Government Ministry of Surface Transport Port Department, Union of India Transport Bhavan No.1, parliament Street New Delhi-1 2. The Chennai Port Trust rep. by its Chairman Rajaji Salai Chennai-600 001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Madras Dock Labour Board rep. by its Chairman Rajaji Salai Chennai-600 001 4. Regional Director Liasian representative Office P and O Australia Ports (P) ltd., Hamilian House N.N.Heraia Marg Ballard Marg, Mumbai-400 038 + 1 CC To Mr.M.Devendran, Advocate SR NO.48347 + 1 CC To M/s.Aiyar & Dolia Advocate SR NO.48133 W.P.No.2921 of 2001 RL {CO} TP/23.9.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/