SREERAJ PARANTHATTA Vs. COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though various allegations and averments are made in this writ petition, when this matter was called today, Shri.M.Sajjad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that his clients will be satisfied for the time being if this Court directs the 2nd respondent - General Manager of the Cochin Shipyard Limited to take up Exts.P8 and P9 representations of his clients and dispose it of in terms of law. He submitted that his clients are confident that if these representations are properly considered by the General Manager, all their grievances will obtain a resolution.

(2.) In response, Shri.Saji Varghese, learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Shipyard Limited, submitted that if the petitioners only requires Exts.P8 and P9 representations be taken up and disposed of, there is no legal impediment in the same being taken up and disposed of by the 2nd respondent - General Manager. He, however, prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on the entitlement of the petitioners to any relief and leave to the competent Authority to take a final decision thereon as per law.

(3.) When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the various allegations and averments in this Writ Petition cannot be looked into by this Court on its merits at this stage because, admittedly, the petitioners have invoked their alternative remedy by preferring Exts.P8 and P9 representations before the 2nd respondent - General Manager. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the said Authority must be directed to dispose of the same as per law.