The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Conciliation Officer must adhere to the procedures outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules, and the jurisdiction of the Labour Officer and the Appropriate Government is crucial in determining the commencement of conciliation proceedings.

MRS. PRABHA SRIDEVAN J.

1. Whether the Conciliation Officer has commenced the conciliation proceedings, is the question that arises for consideration in this appeal.

2. The third respondent, a resident of Chennai was appointed in its service by the appellant herein, by the appointment letter dt. 19.12.1979, issued from its Head Office at Industrial Estate, Shiroli, Kolhapur. His services, it is said, was terminated on 11.6.82. He later raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Officer-11 at Madras.

3. According to the third respondent, the appellant has a branch at Madras and upon his termination from service on 11.6.1982, he filed a suit before the City Civil Court at Madras viz., O.S. 3088 of 1984 challenging the termination. Thereafter, he withdrew the suit with liberty to proceed under the Industrial Disputes Act because he felt he could get a better remedy there and hence the petition under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed.

4. According to the appellant/Management, the third respondent was appointed and worked only at Kolhapur and there was no termination of his service. On the contrary, the third respondent submitted his resignation for reasons of his own by his letter dated 11.6.1982. According to the appellant, the third respondent was not a workman and since there was no discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of his service, the petition under Section 2(k) was not maintainable. The respondent also stated that since the entire cause of action arose at Kolhapur, any dispute pertaining to the alleged non-employment could only be raised at Kolhapur. Also according to the appellant, the third respondent had filed a petition under Section 2(k) about eight years after the alleged termination and therefore, the claim was stale.

5. The third respondent filed the petition dated 21.3.1990 before the Labour Officer. The appellant submitted its reply. Thereupon the Labour Officer by proceedings No: 655 of 1990 dated 25.6.1990 held that the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction to try this matter, since the appointment and the alleged termination took place only at Kolhapur. The third respondent therefore was directed under these proceedings to file his petition before the proper forum which had jurisdiction.

6. Aggrieved by this, the third respondent filed W.P. No. 17007 of 1990. After setting out his case, he stated that the Labour Officer ought not to have adjudicated on legal issues. On the other hand all that he ought to have done was to submit the failure report. The third respondent prayed for issue of writ of certiorari mandamus to quash the proceedings dated 25.6.1990 and to direct the Labour Officer to submit the failure report.

7. The main question that arose for consideration before the learned single, Judge was whether the conciliation proceedings had commenced at all. The records of the case were not produced before the learned single Judge, but the learned Judge was of the opinion that since there is a reference in the counter affidavit to the petition under Section 2(k) of the Act as being numbered as 655 of 1990 and since it is also stated in the counter that both parties were requested to appear before the Labour Officer to offer their remarks, it would be idle to contend that the conciliation proceedings had not commenced. The learned single Judge therefore held that it was only after the Conciliation Officer had commenced proceedings and the appellant had filed its reply that the officer proceeded to render his finding on certain disputed question of facts. It was held by the learned single Judge, that he had no jurisdiction to do so. His only duty was to proceed under Rule 22 to 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). So saying, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition directing the Labour Officer to submit his report. Aggrieved by this order, the Man