IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34444 of 2003(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.DEVI, D/O. APPU, RESIDING AT MEDAKKUNNUMALAYIL, POST KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. 2. K.PADMINI, D/O. APPU NAIR, RESIDING AT KODOLI HOUSE, POST KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. 3. K.KAMALA, D/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KALATHIL, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. 2. M/S. PIERCE LESLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 25, DR.P.V.CHERIAN CRESCENT, EGMORE, CHENNAI. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIERCE LESLI CASHEW & COFFEE LIMITED, KARAPARAMBU, CALICUT. 4. THE OPERATIONS MANAGER, KARA CASHEW WORKS, KARAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE SECRETARY, KARA CASHEW WORK WORKERS UNION (INTUC), KOZHIKODE. 6. THE SECRETARY, PIERCE LESLI CASHEW WORKERS UNION (CITU), KARAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 34444/03. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT. P2. COPY OF THE IDENTICAL CARD OF SMT.SOUDAMINI DTD.6.5.64. P3. COPY OF THE ESI CARD DTD.4.1.63 BY SMT.DEVI. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.30.4.03. P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.5.6.03 TO R2. P6. COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD.28.7.03 sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge . S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 34444 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are three employees of the 2nd respondent. Their grievance in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 settlement entered into between the management and the unions. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners and other workers who are not members of any of the unions who signed Ext.P1 settlement, have not agreed to the terms of the settlement. According to the petitioners, by Ext.P1 settlement, the amounts statutorily due to the petitioners and other workers have been drastically reduced. Therefore, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “i] Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1 settlement. ii] Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 representation in accordance with law.” 2. I am unable to countenance the challenger against Ext.P1 in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since Ext.P1 is a settlement between a private management and their unions of employees. In so far as the private management would not answer the definition of “State” I cannot issue any writ against the 2nd respondent-management. As such, no writ petition would be maintainable for setting aside Ext.P1 settlement. The appropriate w.p.c.34444/03 2 remedy available to the petitioners is to seek their remedies in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners submit that they have already submitted Ext.P4 petition in this regard before the 1st respondent. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate proceedings on Ext.P4 in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and take it to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge