IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24816 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. P.V.SATHYAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI P.O., COCHIN-6. 2. C.P.SABU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, CHEMMAITHU HOUSE, MALIPURAM P.O., VYPIN. 3. P.P.SURESH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PANAVEETTIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., COCHIN-6. 4. T.S.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., COCHIN-6. BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION 38/733, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020. 2. THE MANGING DIRECTOR, M/S.FALCON INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, PUTHIYA ROAD JUNCTION, INTEGRATED SERVICE COMPLEX, P.B.NO.4030, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (A) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 24816 OF 2010 B ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners claim to be workers of the first respondent for the past 26 years. According to them, they have been working under various contractors of the first respondent, undertaking various works like blending and loading of tea and other related activities. The petitioners allege that the second respondent who had secured the contract for the period 13/12/2006 to 12/12/2007 has denied employment to them. Therefore, an industrial dispute was raised and the matter was ultimately referred by the Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the 'Act' for short) for being adjudicated by the Labour Court, Ernakulam. Ext.P4 is the said reference order. Accordingly the case is now pending as I.D.Nos: 14/2008, 15/2008,16/2008 and 18/2008 respectively. According to the petitioners, the Reference Order Ext.P4 suffers from a formal defect for the reason that the dispute that has been referred for adjudication is the one pending between the contractor and the petitioners. According to the petitioners, what ought to have been referred is the dispute between the first respondent and the petitioners, since it is under WPC 24816/2010 2 the said respondent that the petitioners claim employment. Therefore, the petitioners seek the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to rectify the said mistake. 2. Ext.P4 is an order of reference made by the Government under Section 10 of the Act. Any mistake in the said order has to be corrected by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent may also issue an additional order of reference, if circumstances so warrant. It is for the petitioners to approach the fourth respondent for the said purpose. Therefore, granting liberty to the petitioners to move the fourth respondent for correction of the formal defect in Ext.P4 this writ petition is dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 24816/2010 3