THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WORK ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. SRI MERCHANT
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
The Kerala State Electricity Board Work Establishment Employees Union
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE 1st petitioner is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act and the 2nd petitioner a Work Superintendent of the Kerala State Electricity Board,hereinafter referred to as the Board,and a member of the Union.The 1st petitioner represents the executive as well as the ministerial employees of the Board,who were borne on the work establishment of the Board,till 30th September 1966.
(2.) AN industrial dispute arose between the Board and their executive employees represented by the Kerala State Electricity Board Executive Employees 'Union,the 3rd respondent,over a charter of demands submitted by that Union on 30th April 1966 and since the parties could not arrive at a settlement,by an agreement,dated 9th December 1966 between the Board and the Kerala State Electricity Board Executive Employees 'Union,the issues specified in the agreement were referred for arbitration of the 1st respondent under section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(Act XIV of 1947 ),hereinafter referred to as the Act.The issues referred were concerned with the pay revision and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the executive employees of the Board(see Ext.P -5 agreement ).By a notification dated 12th April 1967 issued under sub -section(3A)of section 10A of the Act,the Government of Kerala gave an opportunity to all workmen who were not parties to the agreement but concerned in the dispute to present their case before the Arbitrator.The 1st petitioner -Union filed an application dated 16th November 1967 before the Arbitrator under section 10A,( 3A)read with section 18 of the Act seeking to get itself impleaded in the arbitration proceedings.The Board filed its objections to the application.The Arbitrator passed an order on 21st December 1967 disallowing the prayer of the 1st petitioners -Union to be impleaded in the proceedings.Ext.P -10 is a copy of that order.The writ petition is to quash this order.
(3.) IN the order,the Arbitrator found that the 1st petitioner -Union only represented the workers of the work establishment,who have been absorbed into the regular establishment,but that those workers were kept as a separate unit and were not absorbed as regular executive employees of the Board,that the agreement of arbitration was concerned only with the dispute arising out of the demands submitted on behalf of the executive employees,that the 1st petitioner -Union or the workers represented by it were not concerned in the dispute,and so the 1st petitioner is not a necessary or proper party to the proceedings before him.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that by virtue of Ext.P -1 and the subsequent orders passed by the Board,the workmen of the work establishment became regular executive employees of the Board,and that the award to be passed by the Arbitrator would be binding on them,and so the application for impleading should have been allowed.He further submitted that even if the workmen of the work establishment have not become executive employees of the Board,they were concerned in the dispute,and therefore,under section 10A(3 A)of the Act,the Arbitrator was bound to give an opportunity to the 1st petitioner -Union to present its case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.