K. Syed Gani vs State of Madras and Another

Ganapatia Pillai, J.—The petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari to issue to quash the proceeding of the Conciliation Officer in memorandum

Nos. 114940-LI/57-6 dated 14-5-1958, 66134-LI/58-1 dated 3-5-1958 and 22379-LI/59-8, dated 14-9-1959. The proved facts are the

following:

The petitioner was an employee as a bus conductor under the second respondent bus service, Sri Vaidyanathaswami Bus Service, from 1948.

On 4-7-1957, the petitioner''s services were terminated for what the petitioner calls an unjust cause. After making an attempt to get reinstated, the

petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Inspector, Lalgudi, Tiruchirapalli Dist. on 20-7-1957, for conciliation of the dispute between him and

his employer. It is alleged no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to be present at the enquiry which was conducted by the Labour

Inspector, and consequently, the reports of the Labour Inspector which purported to advise him to accept Rs. 500/- offered by the management in

full quit of his demands is said to be opposed to principles of natural justice.

Section 12 of Act XIV of 1947 defines the powers and duties of Conciliation Officers. One of their duties is to make an investigation into the facts

arid circumstances relating to the dispute which they are called upon to conciliate. I am unable to find any provision in Section 12 which casts a

duty Upon the Conciliation Officer to give notice of his enquiry to the dismissed workman at whose instance the dispute was raised. I am not

saying that notice ought not to be given, because, as a matter of practice, notice is usually given.

But to find a grievance on the ground that the notice given was not sufficient, one must be able to point to some statutory provision or rule under

which a duty is cast upon the Conciliation Officer to give notice. I am unable to find any such provision in Section 12, nor was my attention drawn

to any rules framed under the Act which enjoined the issuing of a notice by the investigating officer, in this case, the Labour Officer, to the parties

to the dispute. The nature of the duties cast upon the Labour Officer is sufficiently indicated by Section 12, and it is more an investigation into the

causes of the dispute than any adjudication upon the rights of parties.

The very object of the investigation as set down in the section is to bring a reconciliation, if possible between the parties and such reconciliation

must be by consent of both parties. Having regard to these matters, it is impossible to contend that there was any statutory duty cast upon the

Labour Inspector, who conducted the investigation, in this case to give any notice to the petitioner, and the notice given to petitioner cannot be

assailed as a transgression of any principle of natural justice.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.