1 wp 6008.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6008 OF 2011 Govind Sundar Kharat, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Retired, R/o G-7, Dnyaneshwar Colony, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Conciliation Officer & Government Labour Officer, Office of Additional Labour Commissioner, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 2. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Post Vidyapeeth, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar. .. Respondents Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri K. D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011. 2 wp 6008.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner was relieved from the services by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner's date of birth is 02.03.1950. The petitioner's contention was that his date of birth is 02.03.1951. The petitioner raised demand notice against the respondent No. 2 as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer appointed as per Sec. 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act and prayed for conciliation. The respondent No. 2 appeared in the said proceedings and justified its action. The Conciliation Officer vide its order dated 21.07.2011 opined that settlement is not feasible and directed the parties to approach the competent Court and closed the proceedings. The same is impugned in the present petition. 3. Shri Barde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Conciliation Officer has to follow the procedure as enumerated in Sec. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. If the settlement is not feasible, then the Conciliation Officer as per Section 12(4) has to submit its report to the Government and as 3 wp 6008.11 per Sub Section 5 of Sec. 12, it is for the Government to decide future course of action. In the present case, the same has not been done. 4. Shri Bade Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supports the order and states that, the dispute was about the date of birth. In the light of that as the conciliation was not possible the Conciliation Officer has rightly directed the parties to approach the competent Court. 5. The Industrial Disputes Act is a complete code in itself. Sec. 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act lays down a procedure to be followed by the Conciliation Officer. Sec. 12(2) lays down the authority of the Conciliation Officer to investigate the case. If the settlement is arrived at then Conciliation Officer has to send the report to the appropriate Government and if no such settlement is arrived at, then also a detailed report is to be submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Government setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to dispute and for bringing about settlement together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances and the reasons on account of which settlement could not be arrived at. Thereafter, the appropriate Government 4 wp 6008.11 has to consider the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer and if it states that there is case for reference to a Board, Labour Court or Tribunal it may make such reference. 6. No such procedure has been adhered to in the present case. In the light of that the present order cannot be sustained. In the result I pass the following order. O R D E R A. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. B. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "A". C. The Conciliation Officer shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act by sending the report to the Government and thereafter the appropriate Government shall take steps as laid down in Sec. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11