IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17621 of 2008(W)
1. D.MOHANAN NAIR, MANJAVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. S.PRATHAP KUMAR, PRATHAPA MANDIRAM,
3. KUMARI MINI S.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
3. N.I.INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING,
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-----------------------
W.P.(C).No. 17621 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, an
order passed by the 2nd respondent declining to send
failure report as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the
Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that, on the materials
produced he was not satisfied that the petitioners are
workmen as defied in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
2. The role of the Conciliation Officer is only to
induce the parties to a conciliation to settle the dispute
and once conciliation has failed, the duty of the
Conciliation Officer is to submit a failure report to the
appropriate Government. Ext.P1 report demonstrates that
the conciliation has failed. Therefore the dispute as to
whether the petitioners are workmen or not is the matter
WP(c).No.17621/08 /2/
which ultimately has to be decided by the Industrial Court as
and when a reference under Section 10 is made. This is not a
matter for the conciliation officer to decide.
3. In view of this I quash Ext.P5 and direct the 2nd
respondent to sent a report as contemplated under Section 12
(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the first respondent, in
which case the first respondent shall take appropriate
decision as is required under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.17621/08 /2/