Kerala Livestock Development Board vs Kerala Livestock Development Board Employee

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The second respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The first respondent is the writ petitioner. The said respondent filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 communication of the Government dated 17.2.2009.

The brief facts of the case are the following:

The first respondent is a trade union of the workmen under the appellant. As per Ext.P1 order, issued by the Government, the workmen were entitled to get fitment benefit of Rs. 250/- and also weightage of Rs. 250/-. Ext.P1 was issued based on the motion made by the management for revision of wages for the workmen. Subsequently, the Government approved wage revision for the workmen on the motion of the appellant, as per Ext.P2 order dated 27.5.2008. The said order provided for payment of fitment benefit at the rate of 6% subject to a minimum of Rs. 350/-. There was also a provision for payment of weightage at the rate of one increment for four years service, subject to a maximum of four increments. There arose a dispute whether the workmen were entitled to get the fitment benefit as well as weightage at the rate of Rs. 250/- in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order. The Government clarified, as per Ext.P3, that they are not entitled to get Rs. 250/- on both the counts. In other words, they are entitled to get only Rs. 250/- instead of Rs. 500/-, which was paid earlier. The workmen feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3, through their union, filed the Writ Petition praying to quash Ext.P3. But, the learned Single Judge took the view that their claim is a matter which should be taken up before the forums provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. To enable them to do that, the learned Single Judge granted stay for six months of the recovery of the alleged excess amounts paid to them. The judgment was rendered on 1.4.2009. The period of stay granted for six months is already over. But, the second respondent in the Writ Petition has preferred this appeal stating that there is no dispute concerning the payment of aforementioned benefits and therefore, the liberty given to the workmen to raise the industrial dispute is unsustainable. The learned Senior Counsel, Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, submitted that the Government have taken the decision in Ext.P3 after hearing the representatives of the workmen and therefore, they have no right to raise a dispute. So, the permission granted by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Benny Gervasis, also supported the appellant.

The Industrial Disputes Act is an Act designed for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. ''Industrial Dispute'' is defined u/s 2(k) as follows:

Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.

Going by the definition, any dispute concerning employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour, can be the subject matter of an industrial dispute. There is no privity of contract between the workmen and the Government. The management of the appellant Board may be bound by the decision of the Government. But, the workmen are free to raise the dispute that the payment made hitherto should be continued and there should not be any recovery of benefits already paid. We have no doubt that the said demand, if not accepted by the management will give rise to an industrial dispute, which can be raised before the forums provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. So, the contention of the management is plainly untenable. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

W.A. No. 1313 of 2009:

In view of the judgment in W.A. No. 1302 of 2009, this Writ Appeal is also dismissed.