IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25998 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALL KERALA SECURITY SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (INTUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, K.SURESH BABU. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No25998 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Exhibit P5 in the light of legal provisions advanced. 2) Direct the 1st respondent that the petitioner is made a party in the 7A proceedings and the petitioner be heard before assessing the amount. 3) The 2nd respondent may be directed to take necessary action to dispose of Exhibit P7 within a minimum period of time. 4) Be further pleased to issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Ext.P5 referred to in the first prayer of the writ petition is a representation said to have been made by the writ petitioner WP(C) No.25998 of 2010 - 2 - herein to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Thiruvananthapuram. It appears to be the continuation of some earlier correspondence between the addressee and the representative. The opening paragraph of Ext.P5 reads as follows: “Referring to the reply dated 09.07.2010 by the A.P.F.C., it is submitted that the reply is prima facie vague and not on the dispute that the union has raised in the above referred letters for the following reasons:” 3. From the content of the said representation, we understand that certain allegations are made against a Company known as 'G4 Security Services' regarding the failure of the said Company to comply with the various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Provident Fund Act, etc. 4. The various allegations made in the said representation may be true or may not be true. It requires appropriate enquiry into the matter where facts are required to be ascertained and for the said purpose evidence is required to be taken. The forum under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the most ill-suited forum for such an exercise. Each one of the laws dealing with the welfare of the work force of this country WP(C) No.25998 of 2010 - 3 - such as the Provident Fund Act, Industrial Disputes Act, etc. creates a forum for examination of the questions, both on fact and in law, arising out of the rights and obligations created by those various enactments. The petitioner instead of availing such forum approached this Court with what appears to be an innocuous prayer. If entertained, the wit petition has the potential of effectively turning the proceedings into large scale commission of enquiry into the various irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been prevalent in the State of Kerala. In the context of the rights under the labour proceedings we decline to exercise our discretion in the background of the facts narrated above. The writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns