IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37448 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (KERALA), EXPRESS HOUSE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 017 REPRESENTED BY K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM, CONCILIATION OFFICER IN THE MATTER OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE OF THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF NEWSPAPER ESTABLISHMENT, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER (HQ) HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS, EXPRESS HOUSE KALOOR, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS, EXPRESS HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 37448 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Union of workers of the 4th respondent- newspaper establishment. Some members of the petitioner's union were transferred, in respect of which the petitioner-union raised an industrial dispute by filing Ext. P1 complaint before the conciliation officer having jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. Pursuant thereto, the District Labour Officer (Headquarters) of the office of the Labour Commissioner had issued Ext. P2 notice convening a conciliation conference. While that conciliation proceedings were pending, respondents 4 and 5 effected further transfer. In view of the fact that changing of conditions of service, without obtaining sanction of the conciliation officer, while an industrial dispute is pending is prohibited by the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner filed Ext. P8 complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Now the petitioner apprehends that without taking proceedings on Ext. P8, the conciliation officer may separately send failure report in respect of the industrial dispute raised by Ext. P1 alone, in which case the petitioner would be driven to another set of conciliation proceedings which would delay the matter further. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to respondents 4 and 5 at this juncture. Insofar as the dispute raised by Ext. P1 and Ext. P8 complaint are intrinsically interconnected, it is only appropriate that the conciliation officer concludes the proceedings in both together. W.P.C. No. 37448/09 -: 2 :- Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Labour Officer (HQ) of the Office of the Labour Commissioner to conclude proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 as also Ext. P8 together and take the same to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.