Harilal, J.
The appellant, who is the Secretary of a Voluntary Association, filed WP(C)No.14555/14 alleging that the 3rd and 4th respondents have not extended the benefits of various labour legislations that are applicable to the workers. They had submitted Ext.P1 representation before the 1st respondent and Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent, complaining violation of different provisions of various labour legislations. The Single Bench of this Court disposed the above writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible @ within a period of 6 weeks of the date of production of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the interested parties. Now, this writ petition is filed challenging the said order, on the ground that though Ext.P1 representation is pending for consideration before the 1st respondent and Ext.P3 representation pending consideration before the 4th respondent, no direction had been issued to those respondents to consider Exts.P1 and P3 respectively.
2. We heard the petitioner who appeared in person before us. Going by the impugned judgment it could be seen that, it is the specific case of the appellant that though the 3rd and 4th respondents had not extended the benefits of various labour legislations that are applicable to the members of the Voluntary Association, no action had been taken by the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is also contended that before filing of Exts.P1 and P2, they filed Ext.P3 representation before the 4th respondent complaining the violation of statutory provisions under various legislations that are applicable to them. It is true that Ext.P1 representation is pending consideration before the 1st respondent and no direction had been issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1. But at the same time, the party in person contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court ought to have issued a direction to the 3rd respondent, who allegedly violated the provisions of various labour legislations. The violation of various provisions under the labour legislations is a disputed fact which requires proper enquiry under the relevant statutes. So, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the 3rd respondent believing the grievance of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry on the factual dispute. We are of the further opinion that it is for the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct proper enquiry and take action against the 3rd and 4th respondents, if the allegation raised by the petitioner is found true and correct.
3. But at the same time, we find that the learned Single Judge of this Court ought to have issued a direction to the 1st respondent who abdicated his statutory duty by not disposing Ext.P1 representation filed before him, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
4. Therefore, we find that the grievance projected in this appeal can be redressed, by modifying the reliefs granted in the writ petition. Consequently, the relief granted in the writ petition will stand modified as follows :
The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 representation and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible @ within a period of 6 weeks of the date of production of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the interested parties.
The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.