IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7224 of 2008 Between: Nagidi Subba Rao S/o. Meeraiah R/o. Amruthaluru ( V&M ), Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principle Secretary to the Govt., Labour & Employment & Training Factories, (Lab-IV ) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., A.P. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, Guntur Dist. 3 The Executive Director, ( V & V ), APSRTC, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order , direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not referring the dispute to the concerned Tribunal or Labour Court for adjudication in pursuance of the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent No. B/D.Dis.2466/03, dated : 29-01-2004 as required under Section 12(4) of Industrial Dispute Act, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the concerned tribunal or labour court for adjudication in pursuance of the 2nd respondent proceedings in b/d.dis.2466/03, dated: 29-01-04 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.VEERASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7224 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service by the appointing authority, on the allegations of misconduct. He preferred an appeal before the Senior Manager, Guntur, and the appeal was rejected. In review, filed before the Executive Director, Vijayawada, the 3rd respondent herein, the order of removal was set aside and punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, for a period of two years, with its effect of postponement of future increments; was imposed, vide order dated 23-08-2001. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). After issuing notice to respondents 1 and 3, and undertaking conciliation, the 2nd respondent reported to the 1st respondent, the failure of conciliation, vide his proceedings dated 29- 01-2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has not referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour, and learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. The Act, and in particular Section 12 thereof, prescribes a detailed procedure to be followed, whenever a dispute is raised before the Conciliation Officer. If the Conciliation Officer reports failure, the 1st respondent is under obligation to examine the matter and to consider the feasibility of making a reference to Labour Court. A statutory duty is cast upon the 1st respondent, to take necessary action, under Section 12(5) of the Act. Failure to discharge the duty would certainly have its effect on the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to take necessary steps on the basis of the report dated 29-01-2004, submitted by the 2nd respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}