Judgment :- The petitioner was working as a Driver in the second respondent Transport Corporation. The petitioner is about to reach the age of superannuation on 28.02.2010. It transpires one Trade Union by name Anaithu Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu Sangam, Salem District had raised a dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act). 2. The grievance projected by the Union was various punishment orders given to the petitioner should be cancelled. The said Trade Union had also stated that the workman viz., the petitioner was given several charge memos and illegal punishments were also given. 3. On the basis of the letter sent by the Trade Union, the first respondent Labour Officer by proceedings dated 18.02.2009 directed both parties to appear for talks before him. The second respondent Transport Corporation had given a detailed reply dated 19.06.2009, for which the Trade Union had given a re-joinder dated 27.08.2009. It is further seen that the first respondent Labour Officer, by proceedings dated 20.09.2009 asked the parties to appear for an enquiry on the basis of the complaint made by the Union. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also been notified about the impending retirement on 28.02.2010. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent Labour Officer to send a failure report under Section 12(4) of the I.D.Act to the State Government. 4. When the matter came up on 16.02.2010, Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Transport Corporation took notice. Today, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation produced a list of punishments given to the petitioner which runs into 43 punishments and in one case, viz.,the current one, his unauthorised absence is still pending final orders. 5. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can file the present writ petition when it did not relate to his non-employment as covered by Section 2(a) of the I.D.Act. Once the case of the petitioner is taken up by the Trade Union and the matter is pending negotiation before the first respondent Labour Officer, this Court cannot grant any direction to send a failure report. Once the case of the petitioner is taken up by the Trade Union and the matter is pending negotiation before the first respondent Labour Officer, this Court cannot grant any direction to send a failure report. Unless there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the Labour Officer and if such delay is questioned by the Trade Union which raised the dispute, the petitioner has no locus standi to intermeddle in the dispute raised by the Trade Union as the issue does not relate to his non-employment, but various other minor punishments given by the Corporation over a long period. In the absence of the petitioner having locus standi to file the writ petition, this Court cannot grant any direction to the Labour Officer to send a failure report. It is not as if the failure report is sent to the State Government under Section 12(4) as a matter of course. The Conciliation Officer who is appointed under Section 4 of the I.D.Act has to conciliate between the parties under Section 12(2) and if any settlement is reached under Section 12(3), he has to record such settlement. If he is of the opinion, despite his efforts, no settlement is possible, a failure report will have to be sent to the State Government. Secondly, it must be noted that it is not as if the Conciliation Officer shall begun with a strike notice issued under Section 22 where there is no course except to conciliate and send a failure report within the time. The very I.D.Act do not prescribe any time limit for sending a failure report. 6. In the absence of any locus standi or any enforceable right on the part of the petitioner, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.