IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16547 of 2009 Satya Pal and others ...Petitioners Versus The Labour Commissioner, Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to Section 12(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under:- “(2) The conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute without delay investigate the dispute and all mattes affecting the merits and right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute.” The counsel says that the writ would lie for enforcing the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer to perform his duties. No doubt, duty enjoined upon would have corresponding right to seek its performance but it may not be possible to accept the reasoning that directions can be issued to perform duty if no right is being violated. Section 12 primarily lays down the duties on the part of the Labour- Civil Writ Petition No. 16547 of 2009 -2- cum-Conciliation Officer. As part of his duties, Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer may be required to do what is provided in Section 12 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act but he cannot be asked to perform his duty in a particular manner. Labour-cum-Conciliation officer is not seen avoiding any duty for which any directions are required to be issued. In any case, no negotiations can be enforced, which are not agreed to by the Management, the only remedy open for the petitioners would be to seek reference of the dispute. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has already recommended that dispute should be referred to Labour Court. This fact is, however, disputed by Mr. Rathee who is appearing on behalf of the State. It was noticed by this Court in its order dated May 03,2010 on the basis of communication R-4/11 as under:- “ In view of above facts, I refer the following dispute arose between both the parties to labour court for adjudication. “Whether it is justified on behalf of Management to retrench permanent workmen during the subsistence of contract labour, if not, to what relief the retrenched workmen are entitled?” State counsel had then prayed for time to have instructions. Today, it is being projected differently. It would, therefore, be appropriate to consider the claim of the petitioners that the dispute exists which may need to be referred. When some workmen have approached the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer Civil Writ Petition No. 16547 of 2009 -3- concerning their illegal retrenchment, there would always be dispute which may require adjudication by the Labour Court. The Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer is not the Forum generally to decide the lis on merits. Let the petitioners approach the Government which shall consider the issues in the light of facts noticed above and make reference of dispute, if any in regard to illegal retrenchment of the petitioners. The present writ petition is disposed of. September 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE