Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(2)KLJ724
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 2(k)(ii) of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') fixing the ceiling of the monthly wages as Rs. 750/- so as to make a 'worker' eligible to claim the benefits under the Act has been subjected to challenge in these original petitions; particularly in view of the change in circumstances, when the minimum wages payable to the workers have been increased several times as per the notifications issued by the appropriate Government at different points of time, under the relevant provisions of law.2. The petitioners are the different Trade Unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, representing the major work force in the plantations in the State of Kerala, which come within the purview of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951. It is contended that though the prescription of the ceiling of maximum wages under Section 2(k)(ii) was constitutionally valid at the time of enactment, it has become obsolete ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT356; 2012(1)KLJ255; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)512; 2012(1)KHC268
1. The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4(1) and (3) of the Kerala Handloom Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, whereby the rate of contribution payable by the worker is enhanced from Re.1 to Rs.3, whereby the employer has to effect double the amount remitted by the worker. The case of the petitioner is that, there is no rationale on the part of the respondents in enhancing the same as per the Ordinance bearing No.19 of 2001, which was subsequently replaced by the Kerala Handloom Workers’ Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act 2001. 2. The petitioner is a company, constituted under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956 and it is having two factories, one situated near the head office of the company at Calicut and the other one at the beach, known as ‘beach unit’. It is stated that the beach unit has been subsequently closed down due to various adverse circumstances. It is admitted that the petitioner is an ‘employer’ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Dismissal of the Insurance cases filed by the appellants/educational institutions before the Employees Insurance Court under Section 75 r/w Sec. 77 of the Employees Insurance Act (for short Act ) for a declaration that their Institutions are not liable to be covered under the Act; that no contribution is liable to be paid by them under any circumstance; that Teachers are not liable to be considered as employees as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act and thus seeking to set aside the notice/proceedings issued by the authorities of the ESI Corporation, is the subject matter of challenge in all these cases preferred under Section 82 of the Act. In some of the cases, violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, for intruding into the minority status/rights is also projected as a ground for interference. 2. One of the main contentions raised in these appeals is as to the incompetency on the part of the authorities concerned to proceed with further st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE16H DAY OF JULY201525TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31264 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PAUL CHACKO, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR.2. S.REMESAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION (BEFI) REG.NO.327/77, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK BUILDING, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK BUILDING, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ330Ker
Padmanabhan, J. Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act (for brevity, the Act) came into force on December 29, 1988, providing for seven paid holidays, comprised of three national and four festival holidays. National holidays are Republic Day (26th of January), May Day (1st of May), and Independence Day (15th of August). Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Amendment Act, 1990 (for short, Amendment Act) increased the national holidays from three to four with the addition of Gandhi Jayanthi, birth day of the Father of the Nation, falling on 2nd of October, Festival holidays were increased from four to nine. Constitutional validity of the Amendment Act is under challenge in these original petitions. At the time of arguments, all concerned made it clear that Gandhi Jayanthi may continue as a national holiday. Challenge was, therefore, confined to the addition of five festival holidays.2. The Act is applicable to industrial establi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1953)IILLJ563Ker
P.K. Subramania Ayyar, J.1. This is an application presented by the South India Cashewnut Manufacturers' Association, represented by its Honorary Secretary Prabhakar Gerald Walter, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari for removing the order L2-8772/fi0, dated 24 October 1951, passed by Government of Travancore-Cochin referring an industrial dispute to the second counter-petitioner for quashing the same and for such other appropriate relief as the court may deem fit.There are three respondents to this application who are (1) the State of Travancore-Cochin represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, (2) the .industrial tribunal, Alleppey, and (3) T.K. Divakaran, Convener, Ad hoc Committee, the All-India Cashewnut Factory Workers' Federation, Quilon. * * * * * *3. The facts are as follows. The cashewnut industry is widely carried on in the Central Travancore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker220; (1962)IILLJ169Ker
ORDERG.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, relates to the construction to be placed On the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The management, who is the petitioner herein, charge sheeted the second respondent, for certain acts of misconduct stated to have been committed by him. According to the management, a due and proper inquiry was conducted and it was satisfied that the worker is guilty of misconduct under the Standing Orders of the Company. Accordingly, the petitioner dismissed) the second respondent, by its order dated 6th, August 1959, the dismissal to take effect from 3-6-1959. The petitioner offered one month's wages to the second respondent who has declined to accept the same.3. As, an industrial dispute, I. D. 60/59 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal Kozhikode, the petitioner applied to the Industrial Tribunal, by M. P. 303/59 for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1982)ILLJ425Ker
Vadakkel, J.1. The T.C.C. Thozhilali Union (hereinafter, the Union) is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Some of the workers of the Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (for brevity, the company) are members of this union. According to the company this union and another union together represent only 5.8% of the total number of the company's workers or less. As averred by the union in its plaint 'sufficient' number of the company's workers are members of this union. On 4th January, 1978, the company, and its workers represented by 6 unions arrived at a settlement of their then existing differences and drew up Ext. B-1 memorandum of settlement. The union is one of the parties to the settlement.2. Section II Clause (5) of Ext. B-1 settlement, inter alia, provides that the defendant-company has recognised all the six unions who are parties the settlement as the collective bargaining agent of the workmen employed in the company. The said clause also says that the recogni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1983)IILLJ30Ker
Narendran, J.1. The points that arise for consideration in these cases are: Whether the Assistant Engineers of the Kerala State Electricity Board are workmen as defined iin Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the Act? Even if they are not workmen can the workmen of the Board raise a dispute on behalf of the Assistant Engineers also if they have got a community of interest with the Assistant Engineers? Will the words 'any person' in Section 2(k) of the Act defining 'industrial dispute' mean that a dispute can be raised by workmen on behalf of employees other than workmen? If an Assistant Engineer joins a strike when the unions of workmen and Assistant Engineers call for a token strike for a day, can he be proceeded against for violation of rule 86 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960? Is the suspension discriminatory if only some of the Assistant Engineers who joined the strike were suspended? 2. Petitioners 1 and 4 in O.P. No. 5976 of 1982 are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ160Ker
Sukumaran, J. Badagara area, praised in the Ballads of North, has contributed this trade union litigation.2. The plaintiff was the successful bidder of the exclusive right to vend toddy in the Badagara range for the year 1980-81. An abkari contractor of that stature has to invest considerable sums for the conduct of the business in the shops and the sub-shops. Payment to the Government (kist), wages to the workers, remittance towards workers' amenities under the Welfare Act, are some of them. The kist itself exceeded Rs. 2 lakhs. There were 20 toddy shops in the range; and more than 250 workers.3. C.I.T.U. through its Secretary, the first defendant, issued a strike notice on 14th November, 1980. It contained the usual threat: concede the demands, or else face a strike of indefinite duration. The plaintiff did not yield. Tension naturally mounted. The Industrial Disputes Act has an effective machinery for relieving the society of the ill-effects of such tension. That machinery has, howe...
Tag this Judgment!