IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32263 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. B.SUNIL KUMAR,AMBIKA VILASOM,KUZHIYAM CHEMMAKKADU,PEDRINADU PO,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ALL INDIA BSNL CASUAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC OFFICE) PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (REG.NO 0512/1999 AND AFFILIATION NO.12436), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P.C.THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), T.C.25/3534, 'SHARON', UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM SERVICE, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI - 110 011. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,TELECOM, KERALA CIRCLE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BSNL , SANCHAR BHAVAN,NEW DELHI - 110 011. 5. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PLANNING ) B.S.N.L., KOLLAM - 691 001. 6. THE PROPRIETOR,NAVAS ASSOCIATES, KAVANAD, KOLLAM-5. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA R3 TO R5 BY ADVS. SRI. MATHEWS K. PHILIP SRI. SAJI VARGHESE,SC,BSNL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.32263/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.6.11 FORWARDED TO 3RD RESPONDENT BY FIRST PETITIONER AND ANOTHER CASUAL WORKER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 21.6.11. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.11 IN W.P.(C) NO.19082/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 6.9.11 OF FIRST PETITIONER AND ANOTHER CASUAL WORKER FORWARDED TO FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20.8.11. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 16.9.11 FORWARDED TO FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE SECOND PETITIONER'S REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 29.9.11 FORWARDED TO FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 1.11.11 COMMUNICATED TO SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED BY 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 16.11.11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 32263 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The first petitioner claims to be a casual worker of the Telecommunication Department/ Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the BSNL for short. The second petitioner is a trade union of such casual workers. They have filed this writ petition for an order directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P4, P6 and P7 complaints within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. It is stated that though pursuant to the said complaints, the first respondent had sent Ext.P8 letter to respondents 3 and 5, they did not appear for the discussion scheduled to be held on 18.11.2011. It is contended that there is failure on the part of the first respondent to take effective steps to redress the grievance voiced by the petitioners. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission hearing today, Sri.Saji Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, submitted on instructions that respondents 3 and 5 could not appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Thiruvananthapuram on 18.11.2011 for the reason that Ext.P8 communication was received by them only thereafter. The learned counsel WP(C)No.32263 of 2011 -2- submitted that since respondents 3 and 5 did not participate in the discussion on 18.11.2011, the discussion was scheduled to be held on 5.12.2011, but on that day though the fifth respondent was present no one represented the petitioners and therefore the discussion was adjourned and till date a final decision has not been taken in the matter. In such circumstances as the first respondent is yet to take a final decision on the complaints submitted by the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the first respondent should hold discussions with notice to both sides and take an appropriate decision thereon. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 giving them at least two weeks notice of the date fixed for the discussion and take an appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.