IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31887 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JYOTHISHKUMAR MALAYALAPPUZHA, GENERAL SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT FOREST, TIMBER HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, INTUC, THAZHAM P.O., MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP SRI.R.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VADASSERIKKARA. 4. SRI.ABDUL KHADER, TUM MASTER, PATTOMKULATHU HOUSE, MANIYAR P.O., VADASSERIKKARA. 5. SRI.C.K.THOMAS, CHERUTHONI HOUSE, VADASSERIKKARA. 6. SRI.R.SUKUMARAN NAIR, GENERAL SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT FOREST, TIMBER HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, INTUC, KODUMAN. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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.