1 1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5236/2008 Ramlal Jakhar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5237/2008 Om Prakash Godara Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 3. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5238/2008 Smt. Santosh Swami Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 4. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5239/2008 Bbahadur Ram Khileri Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 5. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5240/2008 Satyendra Pal Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 6. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5241/2008 Karna Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 7. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5242/2008 Ram Kumar Chhipa Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 8. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5244/2008 Smt. Ram Ratni Jakhar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 9. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5245/2008 Tola Ram Saharan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 10. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5246/2008 Abdul Rauf Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 11. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5247/2008 Asha Ram Meghwal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 4.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.D. Vyas, for the petitioner. ... The retrenchment of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.7.2008 by the employer Urmul Setu Sansthan, Urmul Campus, Loonkaransar is challenged in these petitions for writ alleging violation of the provisions 2 of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent – Urmul Setu Sansthan is a non-governmental organization having registration as a society under Societies Registration Act, 1958. The Urmul Setu Sansthan is having no deep and pervasive administrative or financial control of the State and whatever control of the Government is having over it is regulatory by nature, thus, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Beside this, the petitioners are having an efficacious alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the remedy so available is quite cumbersome as it takes enormous time at first step, that is initiation and continuance of conciliation proceedings and also in the second step that is by the appropriate government while taking decision as per the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a consequence to this consumption of time the workmen, who are coming from lower eclones, mostly loose their interest with the cause. I am of the view that the remedy given under the Act of 1947 is not cumbersome. If the machinery provided under the Act of 1947 is not working with the required pace then it is not a fault of the statute but of the executive. The intention of the Legislature under the Act of 1947 is to provide a cheap and efficacious remedy to the workman by holding negotiations, and on failure of negotiations by adjudication of the dispute. The conciliation officers as well as the appropriate government while dealing with an industrial dispute are supposed to act promptly. The endeavour should be to get the dispute resolved at first step, i.e. by way of negotiations and if parties failed to reach at any agreement, then the appropriate government must take appropriate decision regarding adjudication of dispute as early as possible. In any case, 3 efforts should be made to complete the entire administrative process relating to the dispute within a period of six months. In the instant petitions for writ, I consider it appropriate to observe that if the petitioners raise industrial disputes relating to their retrenchment then the conciliation officer concerned shall arrange the negotiations as early as possible and in the event of failure to reach at any agreement within a period of three months he shall submit a failure report to the appropriate government immediately. The appropriate government in its turn shall consider the dispute as per the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act of 1947 within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the failure report from the conciliation officer. With the observations above, these petitions for writ stand disposed of. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal