IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19044 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES UNION, PALA AREA COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. K.M.THOMAS, KUZHIVETIL HOUSE, POOVAKULAM, P.O.KARAMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 662. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LABOUR AND REHABITATION DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. MONIPPALLY MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.4052, MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 19044/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D.NO.41/04. P2. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DTD.31.12.07. P3. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY P2 BEFORE R3. P4. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY P1 BEFORE R3. P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY R3. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.19044 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 2nd petitioner is a workman of the 4th respondent. The 1st petitioner is the union espousing the cause of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner was dismissed from service in 2002. He raised an industrial dispute as I.D.No.41/2004 before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, in which, Ext.P1 award was passed directing the 4th respondent to reinstate the 2nd petitioner in service with back wages and all other benefits. The 4th respondent did not implement that award. According to the petitioners, taking advantage of the impecunious circumstance of the 2nd petitioner, the 4th respondent coerced him to enter into Ext.P2 agreement, by which, the petitioner was deprived of all monetary benefits arising from the award except an amount of Rs.1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement. Immediately after Ext.P2 agreement was entered into, the 2nd petitioner preferred Ext.P3 complaint before the 3rd respondent under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the said dispute espoused by the 1st petitioner is not being entertained by the 3rd respondent by initiating conciliation proceedings. 2. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent society vehemently opposes the prayer in the writ petition. According to him, the 2nd petitioner signed Ext.P2 agreement with open eyes and there W.P.C.19044/09 2 was absolutely no compulsion on the part of the 4th respondent on the 2nd petitioner for signing the agreement. The 2nd petitioner signed the agreement voluntarily knowing all the consequences. After having signed that agreement, neither the 2nd petitioner nor the 1st petitioner can again rake up the same issue covered by that agreement, is the contention raised by the 4th respondent. It is submitted by the 4th respondent that in view of Ext.P2 agreement, no industrial dispute exists, which needs to be entertained by the 3rd respondent. A similar stand has been taken by the 3rd respondent also in his counter affidavit. 3. I have heard both parties. 4. The question as to whether Ext.P2 agreement has been signed by the petitioner under coercion itself is a question of fact. That itself is an industrial dispute. When an aggrieved workman and the union supporting him raise such a dispute, the 3rd respondent is bound to take further action on the same as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act by convening conciliation conferences and trying to bring the parties to an amicable settlement. That being so, I am not satisfied that the stand taken by respondents 3 and 4 is sustainable in law. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to convene conciliation conferences on Exts.P3 and P4 and take it to its logical conclusion as W.P.C.19044/09 3 contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge