IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33106 of 2010(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- B.MOHANDAS PAI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.S.BALAKRISHNA PAI, 9/1286, LG PAI ROAD, MATTANCHERY P.O., KOCHI-2. BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE PRESIDENT, COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.100, LALAN ROAD, KOCHI-682 002. 4. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.100, LALAN ROAD, KOCHI-682 002. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33106 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee under the Cochin Co- operative Society Ltd. No.100. Earlier he was issued with a show cause notice alleging unauthorised absence. He has submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry conducted against him culminated in his dismissal from service. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed a petition before the second respondent for conciliation. The second respondent conducted a conciliation conference but failed to bring about settlement. Thereupon, the second respondent has forwarded a failure report to the Government and, in turn, Government as per Ext.P2, referred the matter for adjudication before the Labour Court, Ernakulam by invoking the power under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer:- “Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the first respondent to rectify the mistake in Exhibit P-2 Government Order by incorporating the Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Society Ltd. No.100, Lalan Road, Kochi - 682 002 in the reference order under.” WP(C).No.33106/2010 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. A scanning of the contentions raised in this writ petition would reveal that, according to the petitioner, for a proper adjudication of the matter referred as per Ext.P2 the fourth respondent is a necessary party. Whether the fourth respondent is a necessary party for a proper consideration of the dispute or whether the petitioner is seeking to bring in the fourth respondent as a party to the industrial dispute only for enlarging the scope of reference are matters for consideration before the Labour Court. 4. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and others (AIR 1964 SC 1746) and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishna Panicker v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (1999 (3) KLT 179) it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court by filing a petition under section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to resort to the remedy available in terms of section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the light of the WP(C).No.33106/2010 3 decisions referred above. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the contentions raised by the petitioner on the above matter. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS