IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 28649 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.SELECT, TOKEN NO.348, UN-SKILLED WORKER, TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD., IRUMPANAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 3. THE MANAGER (P & A), THE TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & 2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29064 OF 2006 & C.O.C.No.367/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.28649 & 29064 of 2006 and Contempt Case (C).No. 367 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are unskilled workers of the Traco Cable Company Limited, the 1st respondent herein. For the period relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions, Ext.P1 settlement entered into between the management and the unions of employees of the company was in force. Under Clause 4 of that settlement, the employees had an option to continue in a particular nature/grade of work, provided they relinquish their right for promotions. A further liberty was given to the employees to express in writing the willingness to work in other areas, which would be permitted on the condition that the employees will have to forego their seniority for such period between the two representations. The petitioners opted to remain in their position by relinquishing promotion by submitting representations. Those representations were accepted and orders were passed permitting them to continue in their position relinquishing their rights for promotion. But, subsequently, the company issued orders withdrawing the orders of acceptance of the relinquishment and directed deployment of the petitioners to other w.p.c.28649/06 etc. 2 areas of work. The petitioners challenge the same in the two writ petitions. They have obtained interim orders to continue in their position pending disposal of the writ petitions also. 2. In W.P.(C).No.28649/2006, respondents 1 and 2 have filed an additional counter affidavit, wherein they have produced Ext.R1(j), which is a new settlement entered into between the management and the unions of employees, wherein, in supersession of the earlier settlement, clause 3.3 was agreed upon, which reads thus: “3.3. It is agreed that selection, placement and distribution of personnel are responsibilities of the Management and it is agreed that the Management will have total flexibility of deployment and redeployment of employees within and between Units/Offices, Divisions, Departments and sections as necessary for full and effective utilization of manpower, in supercession of all earlier Agreements on the matter, without prejudice to the right of the Workmen/Unions to appeal to the management.” 3. It is agreed by the parties that in view of the new settlement, which replaces Ext.P1 settlement, the management is now free to deploy or re-deploy employees within and between the units/offices, divisions, departments and sections as necessary, for full and effective utilization of manpower subject of course to the right of the workmen/unions to appeal to the management. As such, Ext.P1 settlement is superseded by Ext.R1(j). That being so, now the management can deploy the workmen including the petitioners, subject of course to their right to appeal to the management. Insofar w.p.c.28649/06 etc. 3 as the petitioners had the benefit of stay in these writ petitions, no further orders are necessary in these writ petitions, except to leave the parties to arrange their relationships in accordance with Ext.R1(j) settlement instead of Ext.P1. Ordered accordingly. With the above observations, these writ petitions are closed. In view of the disposal of the two writ petitions, no orders are necessary in Contempt Case (C).No. 367/2010 and the same is also closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE “Ext.R1(j)” occurring in line 2 of paragraph 2, line 7 of paragraph 3 and in line 3 at page 3 of the common judgment dated 7.4.11 in W.P.(C).No. 29064/2006 is corrected and substituted as “Ext.R1(k)”, vide order dated 3.10.2013 in R.P.647/2011 in W.P.(C).No. 29064/2006. ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge