@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru
1. The Writ Petition is filed by a Nationalized Bank, namely Central Bank of India. In this Writ Petition, they are seeking for a direction to the 1st
respondent Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chennai to conclude the conciliation proceedings initiated by him in No. M.7/28/2010-B3
dated 07.07.2010, which is pending on his file. By the aforesaid communication, the Conciliation officer issued notice to the petitioner bank stating
that he will be holding joint discussions/conciliation proceedings, if need be u/s 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the subject under reference on
15.7.2010. The issue arose out of the industrial dispute raised by the Central Bank Staff Union regarding the suspension and alleged harassment
meted out to one of their member by name Sekar, who was holding the post of Head Cashier. In the Notice, in the last paragraph, the Conciliation
officer reminded the obligation of the employer in terms of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. From the said notice, one can not make out as to whether it is conciliation notice or mere notice for discussion, because both terms are used.
Without considering the issue in one way or the other by the 1st respondent, it can not be interfered with. In any event, the anxiety shown by the
management to seek for conclusion of the conciliation proceedings and submission of failure report is ununderstandable. Under the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, the Conciliation officer has to strive the mediation between the parties in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act and he has been
mandated for the purpose of bringing settlement of the dispute without delay. He must investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits
and then right the settlement thereof and he has to do all things that he thinks to do, for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and
amicable settlement of the issue. It is only when he satisfied that all his efforts are failed, the question of first submitting a report u/s 12(4) of the Act
will arise. Therefore, the petitioner''s seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to conclude conciliation is unwarranted. Ultimately it is for the
officer to decide as to when to initiate the conciliation proceedings. The issue is not covered by a strike notice arising out of Public Utility Service.
Further, by such direction, this Court cannot thwart the possibility of conciliation between the parties for which Conciliation officer is mandated to
strive to take all steps that are necessary.
3. The Supreme Court has held that the power u/s 10(1) itself is administrative in character and in the exercise of the power, the appropriate
Government is not guided by the report sent by the Conciliation officer and they can always rely upon other materials either for referring the dispute
or for declining the reference. Therefore, at this stage it can never be said that the petitioner bank was deprived of its liberty or rights due to the
pendency of the proceedings, before the 1st respondent. During the pendency of this proceeding, if the petitioner had to take action against the
workman concerned or other workers in respect of the service conditions of the employees, they are always at liberty to do so except such an
action will be subject to the supervisory control vested on the Conciliation officer in terms of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the activities of the petitioner Bank has come to a standstill, merely because the proceeding is pending regarding the industrial
dispute raised by the trade union relating to suspension of one of its member.
4. The Writ Petition is misconceived, bereft of legal reasoning and accordingly the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
