AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The Writ petition is a clear abuse of process. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society and they filed the present Writ petition seeking to challenge a notice of hearing issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Nagercoil.
Apparently, a complaint has made by a Trade Union on behalf of the 2nd respondent on 07.05.2008. Therefore, the Conciliation Officer taking the complaint on file and ordered notice to the management to appear for conciliation talks on 21.11.2008. In the very same letter he also requested the management to appear for a conciliation so as to bring a compromise between the parties so as to establish good industrial relations. Instead of appearing before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition.
The Writ petition was admitted on 18.12.2008. Pending the Writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of four weeks.
It is not clear as to how such a Writ petition is maintainable on a mere notice calling the parties for talks before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer notified u/s 12(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is bound to enquire into such complaints and he must hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner.
u/s 12(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in order to settle the dispute without delay, he has to investigate the said dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof. He may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. If the parties aggrieved for the settlement, then he can record a settlement and it may be signed before him in terms of Section 12(3) r/w 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the prescribed manner. If both parties are not agreeing for any settlement then as per Section 12(4), he has record his failure of conciliation and send a report to the Government setting forth the circumstances of the case and the efforts taken by him.
On receipt of the report u/s 12(4), the State Government u/s 12(5) will pass an order referring the dispute or decline to make a reference in terms of Section 10(1). If for some unexplained reasons, the petitioner/Special Officer was unable to appear before the Conciliation Officer, he can always depute a representative and give his written remarks on the subject matter of the dispute. Even he can after participating in the talks decline to agree for any amicable solution in the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. Though the Conciliation Officer has now been empowered u/s 11(4) to enforce the attendance of a person.
It is rather shocking to note that a mere conciliation notice has become a subject matter of the Writ petition and also thanks to the stay order, it has been stalled for more than 3 years. It is the stand of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has earlier approached the Tamil Nadu Shop Establishment Authorities and the said authority had allowed the appeal in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed a Writ petition challenging the order under the Shops Act and when orders were passed granting last drawn wages, the petitioner has also filed a Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal is yet to be disposed of.
When the contempt petition was filed by the 2nd respondent liberty was given to him to move the Labour Court for computation of wages. Instead of filing a computation petition, he cannot raise any industrial dispute. All these objections can be put in the form of written objection before the Labour Officer. It is unnecessary for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to impugn a mere conciliation notice. No civil right of the authorities has been affected and the petitioner is not prejudiced by such notice. It is also not made clear as what was the nature of the complaint that was made by the trade union which is referred in the reference column of the impugned notice.
Since the petitioner had filed such a frivolous Writ petition, the Writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,500/- towards counsel fee to be paid to the 2nd respondent''s counsel. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed