IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12929 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.P.DIVAKARAN, S/O.CHOTHI, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDANKULANGARA VELI, S.N.PURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STEEL INDUSTRIES KERALA LTD, SILK NAGAR, ATHANI P.O., THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. G.P. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.12929 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a worker of the 1st respondent, who retired from service on 31.7.2007. In respect of a punishment awarded, while he was in service, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by filing Ext.P2. Although several conciliation meetings were held, the same was inconclusive, which according to the petitioner, is on account of non-co-operation of the management. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the same, the 2nd respondent has not forwarded the failure report to the Government so that an Industrial Dispute can be referred to the appropriate Tribunal or Labour Court. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exhibit- P2 complaint in accordance with law at an early date. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to disburse to the petitioner the admissible retirement benefits in accordance with law.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. w.p.c.12929/08 2 3. As evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4, conciliation proceedings have been initiated by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P4 is dated 24.3.2008 and from Ext.P3 it is clear that the dispute was raised prior to 3.1.2007. It is more than 15 months since then. That being so, the 2nd respondent has a duty to take the proceedings to its logical conclusion expeditiously. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to complete the conciliation proceedings and take the matter to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.12929/08 3