IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 22812 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KAVITHA K.P., AGED 35 YEARS, KONNOTH HOUSE, AKAPARAMBU SIX CENTS COLONY, MEKKAD P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM (DT), PIN-683589. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GR-1. ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R4 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R4 SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 22812 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed mainly seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to refer the Industrial Dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent to the Labour Court for adjudication forthwith. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a sweeper as per Ext.P1 under the 4th respondent. While so, on 2.3.2005 Ext.P3 charge sheet was served on her. Pursuant to the same she had submitted Ext.P4 written statement refuting the charges levelled against her. Dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted. On culmination of the domestic enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service as per Ext.P7. After the dismissal the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation before the second respondent requesting him to conciliate on the matter and in case of its failure, to submit failure report to enable the first respondent to refer the matter in accordance with the provisions of the WPC.No.22812/2010 : 2 : Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. Pursuant to Ext.P8 the 3rd respondent afforded her an opportunity of being heard on 26.6.2010. Subsequently, Ext.P10 notice was issued by the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the second respondent had not taken any step to finalise the proceedings based on Ext.P8 representation and in case of failure to bring about a settlement to file a failure report in terms of section 10(C) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 to enable the first respondent to consider the issue whether the matter should be referred for adjudication. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submitted that all concerned parties were called for a conciliation conference in the year 2006 pursuant to Ext.P10. Thereupon, they had submitted that they would settle the matter by negotiating in between them. Thereafter, none approached the second respondent to make further conciliation in the matter. It was in the absence of any such further information that the matter got delayed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the WPC.No.22812/2010 : 3 : institution of this writ petition, the second respondent has issued a notice calling the petitioner to attend a conciliation conference. Taking into account the said subsequent developments this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder: The second respondent shall convene conciliation conference/conferences after issuing notice for that behalf to all parties concerned. In case of failure to bring about settlement in the conciliation conference, the second respondent shall submit a failure report in terms of section 10 (C)of the ID Act to enable the first respondent to consider the question whether it should be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge