IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1719 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- FOSTER EMPLOYEES' UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VARADIUM, PERINGANDOOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.A.JAYASANKAR, MR.MANU GOVIND, SMT.B.MEERA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE FOSTER MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD., ATHANI, PERINGANDOOR P.O., THRISSUR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.1719 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner - Union had submitted a charter of demands and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. Ext.P1 is the award dated 2.7.2008, on the said reference. During the pendency of the above reference, the issue of annual increment created a further dispute. The second respondent and the petitioner entered into Ext.P2 Conciliation Settlement dated 14.5.2007 on the above issue. Though Ext.P2 was implemented before the passing of Ext.P1 award, the second respondent subsequently misinterpreted the terms of Ext.P1 and even started recovery of the benefits that were already given. The petitioner then moved the first respondent for prosecution and implementation proceedings under Section 29 and recovery under Section 33(c)(1). The complaint of the petitioner is that due to inaction on the part of the first respondent, the proceedings are still remaining incomplete. 2. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the first Wpc 1719/10 2 respondent had intervened in the dispute but since the parties wanted to settle the matter, the issues were left for conciliation. It was not at the instance of the first respondent that the conciliation proceedings were initiated. Therefore, according to the first respondent, the matter could be finally decided within a short period of time. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated on Exts.P3 and P4 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk