IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36020 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.M.VARGHESE, S/O.MATHAI, MULLANPOTTAKKAL HOUSE, KARIMPA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. SRI.B.SENTHILKUMAR, S/O.K.SADANANDAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, NAVAJYOTHI NAGAR, KAVILPADU, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SRI BASANT BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36020 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is working as a conductor in a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-09/K 6513 filed this writ petitioner mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, the Union representing the petitioner submitted a request before the first respondent to conciliate on the dispute regarding denial of employment. I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well. The learned Government Pleader submitted that after the receipt of Ext.P1 the first respondent has convened conciliation conferences twice. Further, it is submitted that on both the occasions the second respondent did not participate in the conciliation conferences. On account of the irreconcilable attitude of the second respondent no settlement could be brought about and hence the first respondent forwarded a failure report to the Government for taking appropriate action in terms of the provisions under the Industrial Dispute Act, WPC.36020/2010 : 2 : 1947. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, it is evident that the first respondent has already taken appropriate steps as enjoined under the provisions of the ID Act. The question whether the matter requires to be referred for adjudication in terms of the provisions under the ID Act has, now, to be considered by the Government. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the Government to comply with the directions, the petitioner shall forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary of the concerned Department. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge