IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26416 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------ ID.22/2008 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSEPH KURIAN @ UMMACHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE KURIAN, PRESIDENT K.T.U.C., KUTTANAN HOUSE, NJANDUPARA P.O., URULIKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO SRI.P.A.WAZEEM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM TEXTILES, VEDAGIRI, KURUMALLUR P.O. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM TEXTILES, VEDAGIRI, KURUMALLUR P.O. 4. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 26416 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the president of a Union involved in I.D. No. 22 of 2008 before Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. While that I.D. was pending, alleging violation of Section 33 of the Industrial disputes Act, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is Ext.P7 hereunder. The petitioner alleges that the Tribunal is not taking any action on the complaint and that orally the tribunal has expressed the opinion that the same is not maintainable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate order on Exhibit P-7 as expeditiously as possible. ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to ensure that no appointments are made as Badalis during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute.” I am not inclined to believe the petitioner that the Tribunal has expressed the view that the complaint is not maintainable. I have no reason to assume that the Tribunal would act against the W.P(C) No. 26416 of 2009 -2- provisions of law. Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act stipulates that when an I.D. is pending, if anybody violates Section 33 of the Act, a complaint filed in this regard shall be adjudicated as an I.D. As such I have no reason to assume that the Tribunal would do something against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs