JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The moot question involved in this petition is as to whether the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act can direct reinstatement of a workman? Necessary facts may be noticed. 2. Respondent No.4 was engaged by the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Society vide resolution dated 03.06.2010. Thereafter, some dispute arose amongst the various Co-operative Societies relating to allocation of transportation work which eventually reached this Court. This Court directed the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, to convene a meeting of the representatives of the Societies on 01.07.2010 wherein it was decided that the transportation work for the time being would be carried out through the Bilaspur District Co-operative Federation (for short ‘Federation’) and consequently the work of the petitioner-Society came to be shifted and allocated to the Federation. Now that there was no work left for the Society, it took a decision to remove respondent No.4 vide resolution dated 02.09.2012. Respondent No.4 alongwith respondent No.5 thereafter raised a demand notice dated 29.10.2013 before the Labour Inspector-cum-Conciliation Officer (respondent No.3), who during the course of conciliation proceedings directed the petitioner to re-engage respondents No.4 and 5. 3. It is this order which has been assailed in the instant petition as being contrary and in violation of law, more particularly, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘Act’). 4. Reply has been filed only on behalf of the official respondents wherein they have sought to justify the action of respondent No.3 by placing reliance upon Section 12 of the Act and would further contend that it was not a direction but an amicable settlement that had been reached during the course of conciliation between the petitioner and the workmen i.e. respondents No.4 and 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 5. The proceedings conducted by respondent No.3 on 10.03.2014 are placed as Annexure P-5 and read thus:- “Conciliation Proceeding dated 10-03-2014 Sh. Durga Singh Thakur, Secretary of the Society appeared in dispute. Sh. Vinod Rana advocate appeared on behalf of Pradhan/Kohinoor Sarvhitkari Parivahan Sahkari Sabha Samiti Rani Kotla, VPO Ranikotla, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. appeared in the conciliation meeting. Sh. Gopal Verma appeared in the conciliation meeting and Sh. Pravesh Chandel advocate appeared on behalf of Sh. Gopal Verma, Sh. Ranjeet Singh in the meeting. Sh. Vinod Rana advocate appeared on behalf of Pradhan/Kohinoor Sarvhitkari Parivahan Sahkari Sabha Samiti Rani Kotla, VPO Ranikotla, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. appeared in the conciliation meeting. Sh. Gopal Verma appeared in the conciliation meeting and Sh. Pravesh Chandel advocate appeared on behalf of Sh. Gopal Verma, Sh. Ranjeet Singh in the meeting. No reply and record has been submitted by the Pradhan/Secretary in this office despite of order issued by this office in the conciliation meeting. Sh.Durga Singh Thakur, Secretary has stated that the record of Society has been lost and in lack of any record, the Labour Inspector, Bilaspur, has decided that these two workers named, Sh.Gopal Verma and Sh. Ranjeet Singh be reinstated from the date of order. The intimation to this office be given on the implementation of this order. The Pradhan and the Secretary be directed to implement the same order w.e.f. the date of order. Case closed.” 6. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid order that no conciliation infact had taken place and rather respondent No.3 of his own had directed reinstatement of the workmen. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances whether respondent No.3 could have legally adopted such a course or was vested with such power and authority to order reinstatement is a question which really brooks no dispute. For, it is more than settled that a Conciliation Officer is not an adjudicatory authority under the Act nor is he a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is not invested with the powers to adjudicate on industrial disputes even though there are opposing parties and various points at issue between them before him during the course of conciliation. All that he can do is to try to persuade the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement. In other words, his duties are only administrative and are purely incidental to industrial adjudication. His function under Section 12 (upon which much reliance has been placed by the official respondents) is not of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, for if it were so, then in connection with everything he does, the formalities of a judicial trial would have to be observed. 7. His function under Section 12 (upon which much reliance has been placed by the official respondents) is not of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, for if it were so, then in connection with everything he does, the formalities of a judicial trial would have to be observed. 7. Therefore, once it is concluded that a Conciliation Officer is neither an adjudicatory authority nor is vested with judicial or quasi-judicial powers, then obviously, the proceedings held on 10.03.2014 whereby the Conciliation Officer directed reinstatement of respondents No.4 and 5 cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny and is accordingly set aside. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 9. Before parting, it needs to be observed that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioners in resorting to such remedies, as may be available to them, under the law and in case they so choose to avail of any of the available remedies within one month from the date of receipt of this order, then in that event, the Authority, Tribunal/Court, as the case may be, will decide their claim, as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31.12.2017.