IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35320 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.T.SURESH, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VYMEETHI, NADAMA, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (MWH) &WHM, SAIL WARE HOUSE, KRL ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA. 3. M/S. F.M.TRANPOSRT, FATHIMA COMPLEX, N.H.BYE PASS, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH FOR R3 SRI.T.D.SALIM FOR R3 SRI.P.A.SALEEM FOR R3 SMT. NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35320 of 2009(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 11/12/2006. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/3/2009. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/4/2009 OF SSY WORKERS UNION(CITU) EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6/7/2009. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/10/2009. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7/11/2009. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/2009 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(a) :A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 4/4/2006 IN WPC NO. 10265/2006. EXHIBIT R3(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/6/2006 IN WPC NO. 10265/2006. EXHIBIT R3(c): A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WORKERS PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT P3 DOCUMENT IN WPC NO. 10265/2006. EXHIBIT R3(d): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H- 1537/2007 DATED 23/4/2007. EXHIBIT R3(e): A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 18/9/2007 OF THE CHAIRMAN, KEARALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA COMMITTEE. TRUE COPY P.A.T O JUDGE scm scm K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C). No. 35320 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T In respect of the loading and unloading activities in the Thripunithura Stock Yard of the Steel Authority of India, there was dispute among the workers. The disputes were settled by the District Labour officer, Ernakulam as per Ext. P1 order dated 15/1/2007. Exhibit P1 order was passed on the basis of the settlement among the parties. The settlement was incorporated with the order dated 15/1/2007. As per the terms of settlement, the 3rd respondent-contractor working in the Steel Authority of India could employ 21 persons mentioned in the settlement. If the services of those 21 persons are not found sufficient and if the 3rd respondent-contractor were to employ other persons, the four persons mentioned in Paragraph (3) of the settlement should be employed by the 3rd respondent. Number (1) among those four persons is the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner put forward a case that the 3rd respondent violated the terms of settlement. He made representations to the District Labour Officer. The District Labour Officer passed Exhibit P5 order dated 26/10/2010. It was found W.P(C). No. 35320 /2009 2 by the District Labour Officer that the petitioner failed to prove that persons other than 21 persons were employed by the 3rd respondent. However, it was made clear that the 3rd respondent was bound to obey the terms of settlement and if any person outside the list of 21 persons is to be employed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner should be employed. The petitioner submitted Exhibits P6 and P7 dated 7/11/2009 and 25/11/2009 to the Manager of the Steel Authority of India and the District Labour Officer respectively complaining of violation of the terms of settlement by the 3rd respondent. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent (District Labour Officer) to forthwith act on Exhibit P7 representation and to take all measures for the effective implementation of Exhibit P5 settlement. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has denied all allegations levelled against him. In Paragraph (5) of the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent stated as follows: “It is submitted that, subsequent to the settlement the petitioner filed another Writ Petiton No. 7256 of 2007 before this Hon’ble Court. This fact is not disclosed by the pettioner in this Writ Petition. In W.P(C). No. 35320 /2009 3 the above Writ Petition this respondent was not made a party. That is done with ulterior motives. The District Labour Officer, Ernakulam, Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board and the Steel Authority of India Ltd. are the respondents. The main relief in the Writ Petition No.7256/2007 was to “ issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to give effect to Exihibit P3 settlement therein and give employment to the petitioner forthwith.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioner having supressed material facts, he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition. The learned consel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action being a continuing cause of action, there was no suppression of material facts on the ground that the petitioner did not mention about the disposal of W.P(C)No.7256 of 2007 and the order passed by the District Labour Officer as directed in that Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still entitled to contend that on subsequent occassions, the 3rd respondent had violated the terms and conditions. 4. It is true, it would have been better if the petitioner W.P(C). No. 35320 /2009 4 mentioned about the disposal of the earlier writ petition. But, I do not think that there is supression of material facts disentitling the petitioner to any relief in the writ petition. As contended, the cause of action is a continuing one and the subsequent proceedings relating to the alleged violation for subsequent period would not be barred. Therefore, I do not think that there is any infirmity in the petitioner seeking for reliefs in the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent undertakes not to violate the terms of settlement. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent never violated the terms of settlement. He would adhere to the terms of settlement. It is also submitted that at any time, the first respondent or any officer authorised by him could ascertain whether any violation is being made by the 3rd respondent. Since the dispute between the parties has reached various levels and in spite of the settlement, there are still complaints and disputes, to avoid further filing of writ petitions and other proceedings, it is necessary to issue a direction to the first respondent to verify on the spot as to whether the 3rd respondent complies with the terms of settlement. The first W.P(C). No. 35320 /2009 5 respondent or any officer authorised by him can do so if a specific allegation is made by the petitioner or any other person interested in the matter, as per the terms of the settlement. No further directions are necessary in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to see that the terms of settlement are obeyed and respected by all concerned. The first respondent would be free to adopt such methods to see that the terms of settlement are implemented. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm