Judgment :- The petitioner is a manufacturer of Plastic Mats and his firm is represented by its partner. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to challenge the notice dated 23.10.2009 issued by the first respondent-Labour Officer II Vellore. A copy of the said notice is enclosed at Page No.90 of the typed set. 2. In the notice, it was stated that 36 workers employed by the petitioner, who are represented by the second respondent union and who are also made personally as parties from respondents 3 to 40 have raised an Industrial Dispute regarding their nonemployment. The petitioner was directed to appear for an enquiry in the office of the Assistant Inspector at Ambur on 28.10.2009. The petitioner has chosen to challenge the said notice calling for enquiry. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 to 40 were repeatedly raising Industrial Dispute and therefore such proceedings are not valid. It is also stated that when the second respondent Union raised a dispute regarding the alleged lock out by the petitioner company, they approached the very same first respondent. The first respondent called the parties for conciliation by a communication dated 30.04.2004. The petitioner moved this Court by way of writ petitions being W.P.No.14014 of 2004 and W.P.No.421 of 2005. The said writ petitions came to be disposed of by a common order dated 23.10.2009. Strangely, before this Court, the petitioner contended that the notice issued by the Conciliation Officer was not valid and hence, the notice must be set aside. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by this Court, but however, this Court directed to send notice to all the parties concerned and conduct the conciliation afresh. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2009 they have filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.1863 of 2009 and the writ appeal has been admitted by this Court. Be that as it may, it is not clear as to how the petitioner can challenge the notice calling the parties for conciliation. The first respondent is a notified Conciliation Officer. Under Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whenever any complaint is made by a workman, he is bound to conciliate and investigate the dispute and also do such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement. The first respondent is a notified Conciliation Officer. Under Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whenever any complaint is made by a workman, he is bound to conciliate and investigate the dispute and also do such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement. Even assuming that the Conciliation Officer had issued a notice wrongly, nothing prevented the petitioner from appearing before the Conciliation Officer and give their written objections. 5. Under Section 12 of the Act, if no settlement is possible before the Officer, he has to give a failure report under Section 12(4) of the I.D.Act. By virtue of Section 2A(2), the workman is entitled to move the Labour Court on the strength of the failure report complaining about his non-employment. By the change made into the provisions of the I.D.Act, a workman has got a right to move the Labour Court with reference to his nonemployment and the office of the Conciliation Officer is only an entry to move the Labour Court and the Conciliation Officer has no further power. It is strange for the petitioner to come and challenge a notice over which they can never have any grievance. Ultimately, if there is no possibility of a compromise, the matter will have to be adjudicated by the competent Labour Court. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.