IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 27367 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. N.T.ABRAHAM(NOW WORKING AS SUPERVISOR, CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY,CHENAPPADY,KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. P.P.NISTHAR,NOW WORKING AS SUPERIVISOR, CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY,CHENAPPADY,KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. K.J.SEBASTIAN,NOW WORKING AS FOREMAN-IN-CHARGE,CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY,CHENNAPPADY KANJIRAPPALLY. 4. S.LEELAKUMARI,ACCOUNTANT,HEAD OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD,NOW WORKING IN CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY. 5. VIJAYAMMA CHANDRA MOHAN,LAB ASSISTANT, NOW WORKING AT CHENNAPPADY,CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY, CHENNAPPADY,KANJIRAPPALLY. 6. A.K.SEBASTIAN,NOW WORKING AS FACTORY ASSISTANT(CLERK),CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY, CHENAPPADY,KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES, SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C). NO.27367/2010-U: 3. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MERKETING FEDERATION LTD.P.B.NO.15,GANDHI NAGAR, KOCH-682 020,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.27367 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The Crumb Rubber Factory, Chenappady, Kanjirappally was established and being run by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, they were recruited and appointed by the 4th respondent and hence, they are permanent staff of the 4th respondent and, not the workers of the aforesaid factory. It is mainly seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading up to Ext.P8 and to quash Ext.P1 and to declare that the petitioners are permanent staff members of the fourth respondent in terms of the provisions under section 80 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and are not workers of the Crumb Rubber Factory and as such they alone could not be included in the category `locked out workers' leaving out other staff members as similarly circumstanced, that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Evidently, the status claimed by the petitioners as employees of the 4th respondent and disclaiming their status as its factory workers did not find favour with the 4th respondent. Therefore, essentially a dispute exists on the said issue. In fact, raising such a dispute the petitioners have already approached the first respondent, the District Labour Officer, Kottayam. Though the first respondent convened several WP(C).No.27367/2010 2 conciliation meetings, no settlement could be arrived at in the matter. The conciliation conference which was scheduled to be held on the last occasion viz., on 18.10.2010 was to be adjourned on account of the election to the Local Self Government Institutions. 2. The learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent is willing to participate in the conciliation proceedings. Since the petitioners themselves have approached the first respondent by raising a dispute, they are bound to participate in the conciliation conference. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to convene a conciliation conference and notice therefor, shall be served on the petitioners and also the 4th respondent sufficiently earlier, to explore the possibility of settling the dispute. In case no settlement could be arrived at within a period of two months, the first respondent shall file failure report in accordance with the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act to enable the Government to look into the issue and to decide whether the matter could be referred for adjudication. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS