IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 24191 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU) ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS ALAGAPPA NAGAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.C.PAUL. 2. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES LABOURS CONGRESS (INTUC) ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GOPALAKRISHNAN.K. 3. TEXTILES WORKERS UNION (AITUC) ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY N.R.KUTTAN. BY ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP (SR.) SRI.AKBAR.K.A SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, TRISSUR. 3. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, TRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 4. BHARATHEEYA MAZDOOR SANGU (B.M.S.) ALAGAPPA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R3 SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN FOR R3 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R3 SMT.UMA GOPINATH FOR R3 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R3 SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K FOR R3 SRI.SANDEEP.E. FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 24191/04. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.29.6.03. P2. COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP OF DEVASSY FOR JUNE, 04. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION BY P2 BEFORE R2 DTD.5.9.03. P4. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.28.6.04 TO R3. P5. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.8.7.04 BY R3. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.24191 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are unions of workmen of the 3rd respondent management. They filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for the records relating to Ext.P1 agreement and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take necessary steps to stall the reduction of DA to workers who could not fulfill the targeted production. ii) To declare that Ext.P1 agreement is not enforceable under law in the 3rd respondent company.” The reduction of D.A. to workers who could not fulfill the targeted production is one of the terms of Ext.P1. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent with the help of Ext.R3(a) which is a photo copy of the original settlement, contends that the settlement was signed by the petitioner unions also and therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the same. I am of opinion that the contention of the 3rd respondent is well-founded. In any event, if a union is aggrieved by a settlement, the remedy lies in raising an industrial dispute as provided under the w.p.c.24191/04 2 Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, by Ext.P3 petition, the 2nd respondent has already invoked the jurisdiction of the District Labour Officer, Thrissur, in the matter. Therefore, remedy of the petitioners lies in pursuing Ext.P3. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge