High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 06 KL CK 0183

Kerala Power Workers Congress (Intuc) vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Represented By Its Secretary, Vidhuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 June 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.Nagaresh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 10683 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 306 words

N. Nagaresh, J

1.

The petitioner claims to be a registered trade union of workmen employed in the KSEB. The petitioner states that a referendum was conducted on

20.10.2015 and recognition was granted to three other unions. The period of such recognition expired on 20.04.2019.

2.

The petitioner would contend that after the expiry of the period of recognition of the three trade unions, all the registered unions including the

petitioner are entitled to participate in the meetings convened by the KSEB for discussions and negotiations relating to the rights of the workmen.

However, the petitioner is not invited to any such discussion/negotiation. The petitioner therefore prays that respondents 1 and 2 be directed to invite

and allow the petitioner union also to participate in all discussions to be held with the trade unions of employees in the 1st respondent-KSEB.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader representing the

3rd respondent.

4.

If the period of recognition of the existing recognised trade unions is over, the remedy available to the petitioner union is to approach the authorities

under the Kerala Recognition of Trade Unions Act, 2010 seeking to recognise the petitioner union. However, learned Standing Counsel for

respondents 1 and 2 would submit that in spite of the efforts taken by respondents 1 and 2, the process of recognition could not be initiated or

completed, perhaps due to the pandemic situation prevailing in the State. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that respondents 1 and 2

can consider the request of the petitioner made in Ext.P5 representation, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance

with law, within a period of one month.