IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15732 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KERALA ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION (REG NO 01-14/87) AFFILIATION NO 10485) STATE COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHAIJU KELANTHARA. 2. O.S.SASI, LINEMAN GRADE I, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE KSE BOARD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SC SRI.K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15732/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P5 Board orders. According to the petitioner, by these orders, the number of linemen is proposed to be reduced. It is contended that such reduction is against Exts.P1 and P2 Bilateral settlements entered into between the Management of the Board and the Trade unions in terms of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'the Act'). On this basis, it is argued that the impugned orders are illegal. 2. If the Management has violated the provisions of the bilateral settlement between the Management and the workmen executed in terms of the provisions of the Act, the Act itself provides for remedy including prosecution under Section 29. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is to initiate proceedings under the Act. In my view, this writ petition is misconceived. W.P.(C).15732/10 2 In view of the above, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs