← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/14199/2005closed

A. Babu v. Union Of India

2015-12-01Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 14199 of 2005 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. A. BABU GREASER, E.E.(M) C.T., COCHIN PORT TRUST COCHIN.

2. SIDHIK P.M., GREASER, E.E.(M) I.C.E., COCHIN PORT TRUST COCHIN.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT (PORTS WING) NEW DELHI.

2. THE COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-9 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.LESLIE STEPHEN, CGC R2 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 BY E.K.NANDAKUMAR R BY SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG R BY SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC, SC, PORT TRUST THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VS

WP(C).No. 14199 of 2005 (M) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

---------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT BOARD TAKEN ON 1.11.2002 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2004 OF THE COCHIN PORT TRUST RELATING TO FILLING UP OF THE ENTRY LEVEL POST EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2004 IN WPC.NO.33509/2004 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL ------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14199 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioners who were continued on adhoc basis in the respondent raised a claim for regularisation. It is now submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the petitioners had also raised an industrial dispute with respect to the very same subject matter which has been answered against the employees and in favour of the management. The representative union is said to have challenged the said award of the Industrial Court.

Hence leaving open all contentions of either parties, to be urged in the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, the writ petition would stand closed. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE vs