IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 240 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3507/2011 Dated 09/02/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): NOT PARTY TO WP(C) NO.3507 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PVT.LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, ICTT, VALLARPADAM SEZ, ERNAKULAM-682 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR.K.K.KRISHNADAS. BY SRI.RAFIQUE A. DADA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MATHUR BAYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER,RESPONDENTS & ADDL.RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED, P.B.NO.5, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA-683 562, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. 2. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 501. 3. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 501. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. COCHIN THURAMUGHA THOZHILALI UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2/- W.A.NO.240/2011 -2- 7. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, COCHIN. 8. K.J.MAXI, GENERAL SECRETARY, CITU, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 9. R.REGHURAJ, GENERAL SECRETARY, BMS, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 10. M.JAMAL KUNJU, GENERAL SECRETARY,INTUC, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 11. B.HAMZA, GENERAL SECRETARY, CITU, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 12. SHAJI PUTHALATHU, GENERAL SECRETARY, INTUC, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 13. T.R.DEVAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, BKS, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 14. T.K.SHABUB, GENERAL SECRETARY, AITUC, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. 15. CHARLES GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS, VENAD HOUSE, CONVENOR, CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF TRADE UNIONS, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN, ASG R5 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN R8 BY ADV.SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI R9 BY ADV.SRI.N.NAGARESH R11 BY ADV.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R13 BY ADV.SRI.SOORAJ T. ELENJICKAL R15 BY T.B.MINI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 224 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.224 & 240 of 2011 & W.P.(C)No.3507 & 3774 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 17th day of June, 2011 Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Read the order dated 7.6.2011. We had stated therein , among other things, as follows: “We, therefore, need to be told on behalf of IGTPL as to whether their readiness to process the proposal submitted by CPT, as reflected in the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner, is their readiness to process the aforesaid proposal of CPT”. 2. Learned counsel for the IGTPL which is the appellant in W.A.Nos.224 & 240 of 2011 submits that IGTPL has expressed their readiness to process the proposal submitted WA 224/2011 & con.cases 2 by CPT, as reflected in the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner and such readiness is to process the proposal of CPT as contained in Annexure A1. This relates to the categories of 'Gearman' and 'Foreman'. He also says that it needs to be clarified that the words 'contractor' and 'employer' in the 4th column “remarks/proposal” against the heads 'Gearman' and 'Foreman' are interchangeable; thereby meaning that the contractor under IGTPL is none other than the entity which will be the employer for the purpose of those clauses. Recording the aforesaid, we close the writ appeals and writ petitions in terms of the earlier interim order which we make absolute hereby and further order that all other questions in relation to any dispute between the parties and the labour unions or workmen are left open. No party represented through counsel, has any objection to this course being adopted. We close these proceedings and it would be open to the Regional Labour Commissioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if any, that may be found WA 224/2011 & con.cases 3 necessary. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge Sd/- S. S.Satheesachandran, Judge cdp/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.