C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009 Date of Decision:02.09.2009 Central Bank of India .....Petitioner Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges a direction by the Court to get the parties present in the Court on 03.09.2009 for effecting conciliation. The order records the fact that in past it has found more than 30% of disposal have come through conciliation and it was the strong opinion of the Presiding Officer that conciliation shall be done and for such a process the presence of the party is necessary. 2. The impugned direction contains also a reference to an alleged statement by the authorized representative of the competent authority to secure the presence in Court. It is invariably a matter of procedure for the Court as to what is the best course to adopt for an adjudication and if in the Court's view, conciliation is always the best method of resolving a dispute, it should again be on fundamental premise that parties are willing for such a course. While it could be a C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009 -2- prerogative of a Presiding Officer to take a decision on merits, it is never a prerogative of an officer to compel conciliation. It subverts the very idea of conciliation for, no conciliatory process could ever be successful if one party is not willing. While one can appreciate the zeal expressed by the Presiding Officer, it would ill-behove the proper conduct of an officer to ride rough-shod over the respective party's individual volition and force a mechanism which in the perception of the Presiding Officer is the best mode. 3. In Saleem Bar Association (II) Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in relation to Section 89 CPC, "it is evident that all four alternatives, viz, arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through the Lok Adalat and mediation are mean to be the action of persons or institution outside the court and not before the court. Order 11 Rule 1-C speaks of the 'Conciliation Forum' referring back the dispute to the Court. In fact, the Court is not involved in the actual mediation/conciliation. Section 89(2)(d) only means that when mediation succeeds and parties agree to the terms of settlement, the mediator will report to the court and the Court, after giving notice and hearing the parties, "effect" the compromise and pass a decree in accordance with the terms of settlement accepted by the parties. The very act of filing the writ petition by the petitioner shows that it is not in conciliatory mode. If that is the posture, it could be unfortunate but that only a party can take the course of what is appropriate in his own perception. The confidence in the court process will take a beating if a Presiding Officer compels party to conciliatory mode even when it is C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009 -3- expressed by one of them that he is not interested in such course. 3. I set aside the direction passed by the learned Presiding Officer even at the stage of admission without serving a notice on the other side for the better administration of justice that messages loud and clear that Court shall not force a conciliation when parties do not want it. The writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission itself. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 02, 2009 Pankaj*