IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28731 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ESTATE AND PLANTATION WORKERS UNION (TUCI), REG.NO.11-06-90, HML, THENMALA VALLEY UNIT, KAZHUTHURUTHY P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT V.SIVAPRASAD. 2. K.G.BABU, CHECK ROLL NO.2470, ISFIELD ESTATE NO.2 DIVISION, HARRISON MALAYALAM LIMITED, NAGAMALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HARRISON MALAYALAM LIMITED, NAGAMALA GROUP, KAZHUTHURUTTY PO, REPRESENTED BY ITS GROUP MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, PUNALUR. ADV.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28731 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is a trade union and the 2nd petitioner is a member of that union. Challenging Ext.P1 Voluntary Separation Scheme framed by the 1st respondent-management, the 1st petitioner union filed Exts.P3 and P4 complaints before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent is not taking any steps as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of Exts.P3 and P4 complaints. The petitioners, therefore, seek a direction to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action on Exts.P3 and P4. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. On receipt of a compliant under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the 2nd respondent has a duty to take the same to its logical conclusion as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to take further proceedings on Exts.P3 and P4 and take the same to its logical conclusion as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2