IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 28474 of 2008 Between: 1 D.Ramachander S/o.Jagya 2 S.Abdul Sattar S/o.Mahboob Doula 3 K.Lakshmi W/o.Chandraiah 4 N.Yadamma W/o.Surender Reddy 5 B.Yadamma W/o.Murali 6 S.Harikanth S/o.Veeraiah 7 B.Naveen Kumar S/o.Lingam Goud 8 K.Ambika W/o.Sawarappa 9 S.Yadagiri S/o.Prakash 10 Akthar Hussain S/o.Maqbul Hussain 11 G.Raju S/o.Shivaji 12 M.Kiran Kumar S/o.Sadanand 13 Anasuyamma W/o.Yadaiah 14 Tuka Bai W/o.Kalogi Gajre 15 P.Kamala W/o.Shankar All workers employed by the Central Excise & Customs Deptt., C/o. Md.Akbar Ali, D.No.9-3-104, Harijan Basti, Hasmathpet, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 009. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of India, represented by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi. 2 Commissionerate - II, Central Excise & Customs Department, represented by the Commissioner Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, Lal Bahadur Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 Commissionerate - IV, Central Excise & Customs Department, represented by the Commissioner Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, Lal Bahadur Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 4 Commissionerate , Central Excise & Customs Department, represented by the Commissioner, Tirupati. 5 Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Opp: Shivam Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of the first Respondent in not making a reference of the industrial disputes vide the conciliation proceedings F.No. 8/1/007-E3, F.No.8/4/2007-E3, F.No. 8/5/2007-E3 and F.No. 8/7/2007-E3 on the file of the fifth Respondent for adjudication to the competent Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is arbitrary and unlawful dereliction of duty, and further direct the first Respondent to forthwith refer the said disputes for adjudication and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.BALAGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in making reference of the industrial disputes in respect of the conciliation proceedings F.No.8/1/2007-E3, F.No.8/4/2007-E3, F.No.8/5/2007-E3 and F.No.8/7/2007-E3, on the file of respondent No.5 for adjudication to the competent Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard Sri K. Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T. Balajayasree, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5 and perused the record. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that despite respondent No.5 reporting failure of conciliation proceedings as far back as December 2007, respondent No.1 has not so far taken a decision on reference of the disputes to the competent Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. As the grievance of the petitioners is innocuous, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision, if not already taken, on the issue of reference of the disputes raised before respondent No.5 in respect of which failure reports were submitted by him, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision taken by respondent No.1 shall be communicated to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J December 29, 2008 DSK