The Kerala High Court on Friday ordered the Labour Commissioner to hold a conciliation meeting in Kochi to thrash out the difference between the striking employees of Muthoot Finance Ltd. and its management.
Justice A. Muhamed Musthaque also directed the police to provide protection to the employees of various branches of the company who are willing to work. The court appointed High Court lawyer Liji J. Vadakkedam as observer at the meeting.
The court said the present dispute arose in the context of a decision taken by the management to close down 44 branches in different part of the State. As a result of the closure of the branches, 164 employees had been terminated from service. The case of the Managing Director (MD) was that with help of the CITU and others, obstruction was being caused to the employees who were willing to attend duties.
The Judge observed that the court could not ignore the cause raised by the employees. The petitioner was one of the largest companies in financial business. They were having 3,000 branches all over the contry and more than 2,500 were working in the State. The company shall not turn a Nelson's eye to the employees working under them.
A congenial atmosphere should be created in the company where the employees could ventilate their grievances. If the petitioner was compelled to close the branches because they were financially unviable, it was open for the management to find out an alternative to accommodate such employees.
Anyway, it was only possible when there was a platform to thrash out the differences. In such circumstances, it was appropriate that the Labour Commissioner initiated a conciliation, the court said.
The court passed the order on a petition filed by George Alexander, Managing Director of the company, seeking police protection for the employees willing to work in as many as 568 branches of the company.
Government Pleader P.P. Thajudeen submitted that though the Labour Commissioner had called conciliation meeting twice, the MD had refused to attend the meeting. The police were providing adequate protection as ordered by the court to ensure law and order.
When the petition came up, the MD had agreed to appear before the Labour Commissioner at the meeting. Besides, it was agreed before the court that the authorised representatives of the company as well as the Non-Banking and Private Finance Employees Association and CITU would appear before the Labour Commissioner.
The court directed the branch managers of the company to give details of the employees who were willing to attend the duties to the police station concerned for providing police protection to the employees. The police were also directed to ensure that no untoward incident occurred and employees who were willing to attend duties were not prevented from doing so.
