IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25636 of 2008(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- AJAYAKUMAR.C.K, S/O. KELAPPAN NAMBIAR, CHIYAKATH KAIPRATH HOUSE, THUMBOTTA, P.O. PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY MR.P.U.SHAILAJAN, ADVOCATE. MS. REKHA K.B, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL COMPLEX AND CENTRE FOR ADVANCE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD., PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY MR. P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC FOR R2. MS. M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.25636/2008 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : COPY OF PROVIDENT FUND ANNUAL STATEMENT FOR 2000-01. EXT. P3 : COPY OF PROVIDENT FUND ANNUAL STATEMENT FOR 2003-04. EXT. P4 : COPY OF TERMINATION LETTER DTD. 17.11.2005 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF PETITION DTD. 25.7.2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR. EXT. P6 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 3.7.07 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P7 : COPY OF REFERENCE ORDER G.O. (Rt) No.1113/07/LBR DTD. 24.4.07. EXT. P8 : COPY OF SUMMONS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR DTD. 18.06.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.25636 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order is under challenge. The dispute in relation to the termination of the services of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. The dispute was conciliated and on failure thereof, a report was sent to the 1st respondent Government. The 1st respondent by Ext.P6 declined to refer the dispute for adjudication and this order is sought to be challenged in the writ petition. 2. It is the settled position of law that while exercising the powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the 1st respondent does not have any power to go into the merits of the dispute and decide on the desirability or otherwise of the request of reference. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that reference has been declined on appreciating the merits of the claim of the petitioner. It is clearly impermissible. 3. Therefore, for that reason, Ext.P6 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders dealing with the dispute raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg