IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22812 of 2010(B)
1. KAVITHA K.P., AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM,
3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GR-1.
4. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :28/10/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 22812 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed mainly seeking a
prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the
first respondent to refer the Industrial Dispute between the
petitioner and the 4th respondent to the Labour Court for
adjudication forthwith. The contention of the petitioner is that
she was appointed as a sweeper as per Ext.P1 under the 4th
respondent. While so, on 2.3.2005 Ext.P3 charge sheet was
served on her. Pursuant to the same she had submitted Ext.P4
written statement refuting the charges levelled against her.
Dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, a
domestic enquiry was conducted. On culmination of the
domestic enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service as
per Ext.P7. After the dismissal the petitioner has submitted
Ext.P8 representation before the second respondent
requesting him to conciliate on the matter and in case of its
failure, to submit failure report to enable the first respondent
to refer the matter in accordance with the provisions of the
WPC.No.22812/2010
: 2 :
Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. Pursuant to Ext.P8
the 3rd respondent afforded her an opportunity of being heard
on 26.6.2010. Subsequently, Ext.P10 notice was issued by the
second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that so
far the second respondent had not taken any step to finalise
the proceedings based on Ext.P8 representation and in case of
failure to bring about a settlement to file a failure report in
terms of section 10(C) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 to
enable the first respondent to consider the issue whether the
matter should be referred for adjudication.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned
Government Pleader submitted that all concerned parties
were called for a conciliation conference in the year 2006
pursuant to Ext.P10. Thereupon, they had submitted that they
would settle the matter by negotiating in between them.
Thereafter, none approached the second respondent to make
further conciliation in the matter. It was in the absence of any
such further information that the matter got delayed. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the
WPC.No.22812/2010
: 3 :
institution of this writ petition, the second respondent has
issued a notice calling the petitioner to attend a conciliation
conference. Taking into account the said subsequent
developments this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:
The second respondent shall convene conciliation
conference/conferences after issuing notice for that behalf to
all parties concerned. In case of failure to bring about
settlement in the conciliation conference, the second
respondent shall submit a failure report in terms of section 10
(C)of the ID Act to enable the first respondent to consider the
question whether it should be referred to the Labour Court for
adjudication, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge