IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1609 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE COIRFED EMPLOYEES CONGRESS (INTUC) CORIFED, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT A.A. SHUKKUR,(KURUMPELIL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA) 2. R.MHANDAS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA, (VALIYAVEETTIL,ALAPPAT KARUNAGAPPALLY) BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FFEDERATION, LTD,ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. P.(C) No. 1609 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a registered Trade Union and the second petitioner is one of the employees of the Coirfed. The complaint of the petitioners is that in violation of the agreement entered into between the management and Trade Unions, the 2nd respondent had introduced Bio-metric time and attendance register, by which earlier benefits that were enjoyed by the workers have been unilaterally taken away. The petitioners have raised an Industrial Dispute and the dispute is pending conciliation before the Conciliation Officer. During the pendency of the Conciliation proceedings, the petitioners allege that Ext.P7 Circular has been issued. The petitioners thereupon filed WP(C) No.22111 of 2009 before this Court for a direction to keep in abeyance the said Circular. As per judgment dated 05.08.09, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners to move the Conciliation Officer under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Pursuant to the judgment, the petitioners filed a WP(C) No.1609 of 2010 -:2:- petition before the 1st respondent requesting for appropriate orders keeping the Circular in abeyance. The petition was considered by the Conciliation Officer and by Ext.P11, the request of the petitioners has been declined. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 proceedings of the 1st respondent. 2. It is not in dispute that the Conciliation Officer is trying to work out a settlement of the disputes between the petitioners and the management and that the process of conciliation is progressing. Ext.P11 is only an order refusing to grant an interim relief to the petitioners. It is not an order deciding the matter in one way or the other. Though Ext.P11 order is attacked contending that it puts a premium on the illegal acts of the management, since the said order is passed only as an interim measure till conciliation is finally concluded, I do not think that there is any justification for interfering with the order, Ext.P11, at this stage. The petitioners are free to urge all their grounds of attack against the Circular that is in dispute, before the Conciliation Officer. Suffice it to direct the 1st respondent to expedite the conciliation proceedings. WP(C) No.1609 of 2010 -:3:- In the above view of the matter, no other orders are called for in this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb