Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a spinning Mill. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge a Notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Dam, Salem District dated 15.2.2012. The letter itself reads it is an information letter. 2. It is seen from the letter that in front of the petitioner's factory gate, the workers have planned a continues token fast with reference to the reopening of the Mill and also to give monetary benefits. The Revenue Divisional Officer has recorded that the mill has become sick and it has been taken over and therefore the workers, who were aggrieved by the closure of the mills, were continuously petitioning the various authorities. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the 3rd respondent herein requested the petitioner to appear for talks before him on 8.3.2012 at 11 a.m and the letter was addressed to the Managing Director of the Mills. 3. The contention raised by Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner was that it is the subject matter of industrial dispute covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore there is no role for the Revenue Divisional Officer to interfere with the same and hence the letter issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. 4. However, this Court do not consider that there is any legal infirmity in the letter asking the petitioner to appear for negotiation. Ultimately, it is the Revenue Officers, who are in the field and who are also incharge of the law and order in a particular area and if the section of the workers expressed grievance that the management is not taking note of their demand, it is certainly open to him to find out the real grievance between the parties and if necessary to help the parties to arrive at a negotiable settlement. Ultimately, he is also responsible for giving reports to the State Government with reference to law and order problem in his revenue division. 5. The Industrial Disputes Act do not prohibit the private parties from negotiating the settlement between the parties. Many a times negotiations have taken place in the pressing of the employees' association with Mediation Centres and private arbitrators. 5. The Industrial Disputes Act do not prohibit the private parties from negotiating the settlement between the parties. Many a times negotiations have taken place in the pressing of the employees' association with Mediation Centres and private arbitrators. Therefore, in the absence of any legal prohibition, this Court do not think that the 3rd respondent has committed any grave irregularity or illegality in sending the letter asking the Managing Director to appear for talks to find out the possibility of resolving the dispute of the workmen, who are on a war path and also having a direct agitation in front of the petitioner Mill Gate. If the petitioner feels that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction and they have nothing over by way of any suggestion, it is for him to decide whether to attend the meeting or not. On that score, this Court need not exercise its power in interfering with a mere letter of invitation asking the Managing Director to appear for talks. There is no case made out to entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.