Case: Kerala Private Hospital Association &amp; Others Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Others

4. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.5. In order to revise the minimum wages for the employees working in the Private Hospitals, Dispensaries, Pharmacies, Scanning Centers,Units and other allied institutions, the Government of& Skills (E) Department issued G.O. (Rt) No.1334/2016/Labour dated 28.10.2016 accorded sanction for constitution of a Committee called "Private Hospital Industrial Relation Committee" under Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Act.6. The Committee was to function under the Chairmanship of Labour Commissioner and it, inter alia, consisted of Employers Representatives and Employees representatives as its Members in equal numbers amongst others. So far as the Employers representatives are concerned with which we are concerned herein, the State nominated 13 persons representing Private Medical Hospitals Associations, Medical colleges, and private hospitals of the State. These persons are: (1) Dr. P.K. M. Rasheed, President, Kerala Private Hospital Association, Medical Care Hospital,(2) Fr. Tijo Joy Mullakkara, Assistant Director, Jubilee Mission Hospital,(3) Fr. Thomas Vaikkath Parambil, Director, Lisie Hospital,(4) Sri Manoj V.C., Head HR, Aster DM Health Care, South Chittoor P.O. Cheranelloor,(5) Chairman, Pariyaram Medical College, Kannur, (6) Sri Fazal Gafoor, President, Muslim Education Society, Bank Road, Calicut, (7)Sri Don S.R., General Manager (HR), Kims Hospital, PB No.1, Anayara P.O.029, (8) Sri Antony Jacob. M, General Manager (HR), Kosmo Politan Pvt. Hospital, Murinjapalam Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, (9) Sri K.P. Mathew, Personal Manager, Medical Trust Hospital, Pallimukku, Ernakulam South, (10) Sri Saji Mathew, Assistant General Manager, Baby Memorial Hospital,(11) Dr. A.M. Anvar,Ayurveda College Management Association, Pooyappallil, Ambedkar Road, Edappally North P.O.(12) Sri O.P. Paul, Manager(HR), Elite Mission Hospital, Koorkkanchery,and (13) Sri Saidu Muhammad V.M., Administrator, Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram.7. As far as the Employees representatives are concerned, the State nominated 13 persons representing various Trade Unions, Medical Colleges, and Private Hospitals. These persons are: (1) Sri A. Madhavan, (CITU), Arunima, Devan Road, Kanhangad, Kasaragod, (2) Sri K.P. Sahadevan, A.K.G. Nagar, Housing Colony, House No.10, Kakkad,(3) Smt. Bhageerathi K.(CITU), Pranavam, Moonnamkandathil, East Devagiri, Medical College PO,008, (4) Smt. Geetha Viswambharan, (CITU), Pulincherry House, Gramala, Mulankunnathukavu P.O.,581, (5) Sri Velayudhan. K. (CITU), Chinchu, 14/518 A, Chakkerikkaduparambu, Arakkinar P.O.028, (6) Sri Saju Thomas, (INTUC), Kandathara, Perumbadanna, North Paravur P.O., Ernakulam, (7) Sri Vadakkevila Sasi, (INTUC), Kailas, Vadakkevila P.O.,(8) Sri A.N. Rajan, (AITUC), Ambattumyalil, Kolazhi P.O. Thrussur, (9) Sri Jacob Umma, (HMS), Nadayil Veettil, Chettikulangara PO,106, (10) Sri T.K. Sulfi, (UTUC), Pandala Veedu, Jonakappuram,(11) Sri P.A. Shahul Hameed, (STU), Ponoth House, Near North Juma Masjid, Vadanappally614, (12) Sri Jasmine Shah. M.(UNA), Manthadathil, Vettam P.O., Tirur,102 and (13) Sri Libin Thomas (INA), Kunnathettu House, Arabi P.O. Kannur.8. The Committee was to take evidence and then to submit the proposal to enable the State Government to issue notification under the Act.9. Respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are running their private hospitals in the State of Kerala, questioned the constitution of the Committee by filing writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. The constitution of the Committee was challenged essentially on the ground that it did not satisfy the requirements/norms prescribed in Section 9 of the Act inasmuch as it did not give proper representation so far as the Employers representatives are concerned. According to the writ petitioners(respondent Nos.2 to 4), the nomination of the persons whose names were appearing at serial Nos.4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 was not proper and it was against the spirit of Section 9 of the Act.10. It was the case of the writ petitioners that the persons, who are nominated in the Committee as employers representatives are actually employees working in their respective Employers Organizations(Hospitals/ Medical colleges etc.) and, therefore, according to the writ petitioners such persons would not be the proper persons to be nominated in the Committee. In other words, the contention was that only employers/owners of the Hospitals/Organizations could be nominated as Members to represent the interest of employers in the Committee but not their employees working in their Hospitals/Organizations.11. The State contested the writ petition and defended the constitution of the Committee. According to the State, the constitution of the Committee was made in accordance with the requirement of Section 9 of the Act and, therefore, no flaw could be found in its constitution on any ground much less on the ground raised by the writ petitioners.12. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the constitution of Committee. The writ petitioners (respondentfiled intra court appeal before the Division Bench against the order of Single Judge. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Single Judge.13. The appellant herein is the Association of the employers/owners of the Hospitals and Medical Organizations. The appellant was neither a party to the original writ petition nor the intra court appeal in the High Court. The appellant, however, sought permission from this Court to file special leave to appeal to challenge the impugned judgment on the ground that they have an interest in the subject matter of the Lis arising in the case and since their interest is adversely affected due to improper constitution of the Committee though upheld by the High Court, they have felt aggrieved of the impugned judgment and, therefore, they may be allowed to file SLP to question the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this Court granted permission to the appellant as prayed. This is how, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave against the impugned judgment before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.Now coming to the facts of the case on hand, there lies a fallacy in the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.26. A person, who is nominated to represent the interest of his employer, in our considered opinion, need not necessarily be the employer himself. If on the other hand, his employee is nominated to represent his employers interest, such nomination is in accordance with the requirement of Section 9 of the Act. It is for the reason that such nominee once nominated would defend his employers interest and not individual interest as an employee in the Committee. In other words, a nominee in such a case does not participate in his individual capacity as an employee in the Committee but participates as a representative of his employer.27. A representation, by way of nomination, is a well accepted phenomenon. A fortiori, an employee while in the employment of his employer, when nominated as his employers representative in the Committee then such employee, who iswith the working of his organization and the subject, is regarded as a competent person(nominee) to represent the interest of his master(employer). No fault can thus be found in such nomination when made by the State while constituting the Committee. It is more so when we find that the employer did not object to such nomination made by the State of their employee in the Committee.In the case at hand, we find that equal representation is given to bothemployer and employee (13 persons each) in the Committee.30. So far as the employers representation is concerned, we find that there exists a nexus between the persons who are nominated and for whom they are nominated. We also find that the employees who are nominated, are working as Head of Human Resources Department in their respective organizations (see at serial Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 9), they are thusin the subject in question by virtue of the posts held by them in their respective employment.31. In our opinion, we have not been able to notice any flaw or illegality in the constitution of the Committee or/and in nominating the members by the State. It is in accordance with the requirement of Section 9 of the Act and hence does not call for any interference. It was, therefore, rightly repelled by the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court.32. There is no challenge to the constitution of Committee on any other ground except the one which we have dealt with supra. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment deserves to be upheld. It is accordingly upheld.