(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the fifth respondent from dealing the conciliation cases in Na.Ka.No.620/2015 and 637/2015 and directing the respondents 1 to 4 to transfer the cases in Na.Ka.No.620/2015 and 637/2015 on the file of the Labour Officer, Madurai to some other impartial and unbiased Labour Officer by acting upon the petitioners representation dated 30.10.2015 and pass such further or other orders.)

1. The petitioner is an industry covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. One Kumaresan and one Muniyasamy were their employees. Those employees sent letters to the fifth respondent, complaining that the writ petitioner failed to pay salary for the service rendered by them. Both of them stated that they were terminated from service. One of them claimed that he was not settled with gratuity. But, those letters make it clear that they did not raise any industrial dispute under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to the non-employment. Still, the fifth respondent had chosen to issue notice directing the writ petitioner to appear for enquiry with all the relevant records. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court making many allegations.

2. I am not inclined to go into those allegations. When the matter came up yesterday, I put a question to the learned Additional Government Pleader, as to how the fifth respondent issued notice, when the concerned workmen did not raise industrial dispute regarding non-employment and if these workmen had grievance that they were not paid salary, they should have approached the Labour Court under Section 32(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Likewise, if one of them was not paid gratuity, as contended by him, he should have approached the concerned authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Since, there was no answer to the said question, I directed the fifth respondent to appear in person as the office of the fifth respondent is at Madurai.

3. Today, the fifth respondent has appeared in person. The aforesaid question is put to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent has admitted that the fifth respondent as the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, has no authority to hold conciliation in respect of non-payment of salary or non-payment of gratuity. She has also admitted that the dispute was not raised relating to the non-employment.

4. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a letter dated 12.11.2015 of the fifth respondent sending the files to the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai on the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner, in his letter, dated 05.11.2015.

5. In my view, the Joint Commissioner is also a Conciliation Officer, like the fifth respondent and he could not also decide about the non-payment of wages or non-payment of gratuity and the Joint Commissioner also could not proceed with the matter and at the most, the Joint Commissioner could suitably advice the workmen to approach the concerned authorities claiming the relief. If those workmen are willing to raise the issue relating to non-employment, then either the Labour Officer or the Joint Commissioner could hold conciliation proceedings.

6. In these circumstances, the fifth respondent as well as the Joint Commissioner of Labour are directed not to proceed with the further enquiry, pursuant to the notice sent by the fifth respondent in respect of the complaints made by the workmen referred to above.

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.