IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31887 of 2009(E)
1. JYOTHISHKUMAR MALAYALAPPUZHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
4. SRI.ABDUL KHADER,
5. SRI.C.K.THOMAS,
6. SRI.R.SUKUMARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :09/11/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 31887 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 9th November, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the General Secretary of a Trade Union. He is
aggrieved by the inclusion of another union represented by the 6th
respondent in conciliation proceedings initiated by the 2nd
respondent. According to the petitioner, in respect of the subject
matter involved in the conciliation proceedings , there is already Ext.
P1 settlement in which the union represented by the 6th respondent is
not a party. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in the proceedings
initiated by Ext. P3, the 6th respondent cannot be included. The
petitioner therefore seeks the following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to respondents 2 and 3 to abstain from inducting
signatories other than those in terms of Ext. P1 and the like
settlement prevailing in forest area, in the conciliation meeting and
memorandum of settlement entered thereto.”
2. I am of opinion that if the petitioner has got a case that Ext.
P1 settlement is violated, the remedy of the petitioner is to raise an
industrial dispute in respect of the same. In any event, the petitioner
cannot in any way be prejudiced if in the conciliation proceedings
another union is also included. The petitioner’s right, if any, would
rise only in respect of a decision taken in the conciliation proceedings
in favour of the union represented by the 6th respondent, if any. .
Then also, the petitioner’s remedy lies in challenging the decision in
the conciliation proceedings appropriately. Therefore, I do not think
that the petitioner can validly challenge the participation of the union
represented by the 6th respondent in the conciliation proceedings
initiated by Ext. P3.
W.P.C. No. 31887/1009 -: 2 :-
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.