Madras High Court
Chennai Port Stevedores Association vs Ministry Of Shipping on 2 June, 2014
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02-06-2014
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
Writ Petition No. 4157 of 2014
and
M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014
Chennai Port Stevedores Association
Represented by its Secretary
Mr. T. Ganesh Ram
Flat 4-B1, 4th Floor
S.M.J. Parry's Plaza
No.28 (Old No.12) 2nd Line Beach
Chennai 600 001 .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Ministry of Shipping
Transport Bhawan
Sansad Marg
New Delhi 110 001
2. The Chairman
Chennai Port Trust
Chennai
3. The Traffic Manager
Chennai Port Trust
Chennai .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the Trade Notice No.PA/NIT/2009/TM dated 31.01.2014 issued by the third respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Rajagopal
For Respondents : Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R1
Mr. P.M. Subramaniam for RR2 and 3
ORDER
The writ petitioner is an association represented by its Secretary. According to the petitioner, the object with which the petitoiner association has been formed is to look after the welfare and to protect the general interests of Stevedores operating within the Chennai Port. It is further stated that the members of the petitioner association are licensed stevedores and they are governed by Chennai Port Trust Stevedoring Licence Regulations, 2009. The main activity of the members of the petitioner association is to engage in the process of loading and unloading cargo from the vessel/ship which comes from foreign countries and berth at the Port of Chennai, which is managed and operated by the second respondent. The main condition attached to the licence is that the members of the petititioner association should hire only labour from the cargo labour board attached to the second respondent for performing skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled works inside the port of Chennai. The members of the petitioners association are not allowed to employ private persons or labour in carrying out stevedoring operations of loading and unloading cargo from ships and vessels which berth at the Port of Chennai. According to the petitioner, the Dock Labour Board and the second respondent, from whom such labour is hired, fixes the rate and wages payable to the labour employed by the members of the petitoiner association. Due to dispute with regard to fixation of wages etc., originally a wage settlement was arrived at during 1994 and it expired on 31.12.1997. Therefore, the first respondent constituted a bipartite wage negotiations committee by proceedings dated 05.06.1998. Such committee was constituted with the representatives from the management of various port trusts. The committee met at various places from time to time and ultimately on 02.08.2000 a settlement in terms of Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was reached between the management of Major Port Trusts and the Workers Federation. As per the settlement, the terms and conditions of employment applicable to class III and IV employees of Major Ports and Dock Labour Boards were revived. While so, the Central Government, in exercise of its power under Section 7 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, constituted the National Tribunal for settlement of disputes between Management of the Port Trusts and their workmen and re-constituted the National Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 (1A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 25.11.2003 and referred certain disputes to the tribunal for adjudication. On the basis of such reference, the Tribunal, after hearing the representatives of Indian Ports Association and the Workmen of various federations, passed an award which was also duly notified in terms of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Central Government in the gazzette of India on 03.06.2006. According to the petitioner, the award passed by the Tribunal was duly implemented in other ports, but it was not implemented by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitoiner has filed a writ petition in WP No. 4207 of 2010 before this Court for Mandamus to direct the second respondent to implement the award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkatta dated 19.04.2006 in so far as it relates to the activities of the members of the petitioner association. During the pendency of the writ petition, the third respondent issued the impugned trade notice dated 31.01.2014 to implement the manning scale for cargo handling operations which are to be intended for employees engaged by the members of the petitioner association for on board cargo loading or unloading operations, along with a revised wage structure and datum/piece rate workings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The learned appearing counsel for the petitioner would mainly attack the impugned notice by contending that the impugned trade notice has been issued to implement a revised/increased wage structure, datum and piece rate workings with effect from 01.02.2014 without the approval of Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) which resulted in huge increase in costs of cargo handling at Chennai Port besides it being contrary to the policies of the Government of India to bring down handling costs in ports. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitoner that the third respondent, in the guise of implementing the award of the Tribunal issued the trade notice without even consulting the petitioner. In other words, the petitoiner has not been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before issuing the impugned trade notice. It is also contended that the impugned notice of the third respondent is without jurisdiction and therefore it is liable to be set aside. The impugned notice is ultra vires the award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Kokatta. By virtue of the impugned notice, the third respondent proposed to collect the rate pending approval from TAMP in respect of the gang charges, wage rate for cargo handling workers based on the wage revision settlement dated 25.10.2013. By virtue of the impugned notice, the third respondent seeks to increase cargo handling costs ranging from 300% to 500% more from the existing costs. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow this writ petition as prayed for by quashing the impugned notice.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, relying on the counter affidavit filed by the second and third respondents, would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable, either in law or on facts especially when it is filed by an association. The association has no locus standi to file this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, the memorandum of settlement daed 02.08.2000 was entered into under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes relating to wages and working conditions of workers of Port and Dock and it was implemented with effect from 01.01.1997. As per clause 35 of the settlement, it was agreed to refer certain issues for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the award will be binding on both sides. Accordingly certain issues were referred for adjudication before the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkatta and the Tribunal passed an award on 19.04.2006. Since workers were not satisfied with the award, the award was challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Vishaka Harbour and Dock Workers Union of Vishakapattnam Port Trust and obtained an order of status quo regarding the implementation of the award. Thereafter, Vishakapattinam Port Trust filed a counter and ultimately, on 18.04.2009, while vacating the interim order of status quo, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh modified the status quo order duly permitting Vishakapattinam Port Trust to implement the award subject to the condition that none of the members of the petitioner union shall be retrenched and Vishakapattinam Port Trust shall not resort to private engagement of stevedoring companies. As per the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, the first respondent sought the comments of the respondents 2 and 3 on or before 20.07.2006, on the implementation of the award. Accordingly, the respondents 2 and 3 have furnished the remarks on the implementation of the award of the Tribunal on 17.08.2006 to the first respondent. Thereafter, the issue as regards implementation of the award passed by the Tribunal was discussed in the meeting held on 23.02.2011 under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Shipping), Government of India, New Delhi with the representatives of 5 major federations of the Port and Dock Workers wherein it was resolved that non-workable recommendations could be discussed and sorted out and requested the Federations to take up the award as the basic document for future discussions and sort out issues at local level. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the respondents that the interim order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was vacated. While so, the major federation, representing the Port and Dock employees issued a strick notice on the implementation of the award of the Tribunal. Thereafter, Vishakapattinam Port Trust, after discussing the matter with their trade union, arrived at a Settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 25.01.2010. In the meantime, a conciliation meeting was proposed by the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi on 11.05.2009. As per the outcome of the meeting, the Labour Federations/Trade unions deferred their strike. After conciliation proceedings, the respondents 2 and 3 have also held bilaterial meeting on 07.10.2009 with the recognised trade unions and it was decided to obtain the details of manning scales adopted by three Major ports namely Cochin, Vishakapattinam and New Mangalore Port which have implemented the award of the Tribunal and to see whether it will be suitable to the working pattern of the particular port and to prepare a comparative statement with that of the proposal of Chennai Port Trust. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In Clause 42 of the settlement on wage revision arrived on 19.01.2010 for revision of wages with effect from 01.01.2007, it was clearly stated with a view to increase productivity it was agreed that the revision of datum and piece rate incentive will be undertaken based on the performance of previous three years and duly taking into consideration the applicable guidelines, relevant factors and operational requirement and if there is no settlement at local level on the above issue within six months from the date of signing the settlement, the disputed matter will be sent for adjudication/arbitration under Industrial Disputes Act. As per the said clause, the existing datum, piece-rate incentive have to be modified based on the applicable guidelines. The incentive and datum are inter-linked with the manning scale. The exercise of revising the manning scale, datum and piece-rate incentive was last carried out when the then Madras Dock Labour was merged with Chennai Port Trust during 2001 under a 12 (3) settlement. Therefore, after a detailed discussion, the management and the unions have signed a memorandum of settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 10.01.2014 and its Addendum on 31.01.2014, for revision of manning scale, deploying integrated gangs for cargo handling operations, revision of datum and piece rate among others. Only pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.01.2014 and its Addendum dated 31.01.2014, the trade notice dated 31.01.2014 was issued informing the implementation of the revised reduced manning scale for handling various types of cargos. In fact, as per Section 48 of the 3 Major Port Trusts Act, the Port has to frame scale of rates from time to time and the charges are collected from the Port Users in accordance with the Scales of Rates approved by TAMP. In line with this, Chennai Port made a general revision of its Scales of rates during the year 2006 and the charges for supply of gangs to the Stevedores (Port Users) was based on the settlement on wage revision for port and dock workers of the Major Ports dated 02.08.2000 with effect from 01.01.1997. Subsequently, two settlement on wage revisions for Class III and IV employees have been implemented with effect from 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2012 and the workers are being paid their pay in accordance with the wage settlements, whereas, the Port Users have been charged for supply of gangs as per the scale of rates revised during 2006. For such supply of gangs, Chennai Port Trust has been collecting the charges in the pre-revised rate based on the wages effective 01.01.1997 only even though the port has been paying its workers the revised and increased wages as per the wage revision settlements effective 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2012. As far as the members of petitioner association are concerned, since 2006, they are paying the gang charges/wages to the indented workmen only as per the pre-revised rate based on the wage revision effected on 01.01.1997 and the Chennai Port had all along taken the financial burden to spend from their funds to pay the revised increased wages as per the wage settlements dated 19.01.2010 and 25.10.2013 for revision of wages w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2012 respectively. The petitioner association is also enjoying such benefits which has caused heavy financial burden to the respondents. In fact, the petitioner was party to the process of implementaiton of manning scale as per the award of the National Industries Tribunal and revision of datum and the issues were discussed with the petitioner during the meeting held on 04.06.2013 which was attended by the Vice-President, Treasurer and Executive Committee members of the petitioner association. As far as the allegation that the trade notice has resulted in increase in cargo handling costs ranging from 300% to 500% more than the existing costs is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 that increase in cost of indenting a gang for cargo handling at Chennai Port due to implementation of the revised manning scale and the revised wage rate for different categories of cargo handling workers is given in Annexure B to the trade notice dated 31.01.2014 which would indicate that there is only about 50% to 110% more for the cargo handled by Chennai Port Trust. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the contentions urged earlier and disputed and denied the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the second and third respondents. It was contended that stevedores also falls within the definition of management as they are licensed employers. Therefore, in the absence of consent and consensus from the petitioner association, the impugned trade notice has been issued by the third respondent which had infringed their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress and Madras Harbour Workers Union have filed W.P. Nos. 8245 and 8246 of 2010 before this Court seeking to quash the award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal and they are pending. It is further contended that the petitoner association has locus standi to file this writ petition as they are recognised union under the memorandum of settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that in the meeting held on 04.06.2013, the petitioner association participated and also signed the minutes. However, it is contended that unless the TAMP approves the scale of rates and notified it in the official gazzette, there cannot be any wage revision or any increase. Therefore, the trade notice issued by the third respondent seeking to collect the wage revision, pending approval from TAMP, is illegal and unsustainable. Further, the impugned trade notice seeks to modify a memorandum of settlement reached between the parties and the express consent of the petitioners association is absent. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow this writ petition.
5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the writ petition is maintainable and whether the petitioners are entitled to challenge the impugned notice on the ground that it was issued without their consent.
6. Earlier, there was a memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.2000 under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In terms of the settlement, the terms and conditions of employment applicable to Class III and IV of employees of Major Ports and Dock Labour Boards were revived and they are extracted below:-
1. Persons employed by the Major Ports of Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Vishakapattinam, Cochin, Mormugao, Kandla, Paradip, Tuticorin, New Mangalore and Jawaharlal Nehru Port and/or paid directly by the Port Trusts
2. Persons employed by the Dock Labour Boards and their administrative bodies at Calcutta, Chennai, Vishakapatnam and Kandla
3. Persons registered or unregistered (listed) under any of the schemes framed under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948.
7. Thereafter, the matter was adjudicated by the Tribunal and an award was passed. In Para No.66 of the award, the Tribunal held as follows:-
66. This, after making so much of discussion and analysis it emerges that as per the schedule suggested and proposed in the various paragraphs above, the deployment of workers for various tasks should be strictly according to the necessity and requirement and there should be no deployment on gang basis as is prevailing presently. All the proposals earlier accepted in the different paragraphs should be treated as final manning scale according to necessity. In booking of workmen, there should be a common pool which shall be interchangeable and there will be sufficient flexibility to this effect that if the workman deputed at a particular place or for a particular job is required at a different place for a different job, he can be deputed without any difficult. It is also made clear in this connection that the schedule must be followed strictly. But however, one thing is made clear that the management of the ports should not engage labourers other than the employees of the Port for the work supposed to be entrusted to them. The system of deployment of workmen for 10 days or so as prevalent at Haldia and Calcutta should be done away with and deployment should be only for 12 hours shift. So far as the mooting operations are concerned and in all other fields, that shift shall strictly be for 8 hours. So far as item No.2 of schedule of reference is concerned, it has earlier been made clear in various paragraphs by discussing the evidence and the materials that the manning scale of these vessels and crafts used by the ports in the marine department should also be strictly according to the proposals which have been accepted and the deployment should be strictly according to the scales suggested and also according to necessity which should be flexible and should be the discretion of the management. It has been thought proper that the lowest manning scale prevailing in a particular port should be accepted for this purpose as has been done in the paragraphs above and has been accepted and accordingly the third issue is also decided and it is held that for similar tasks there must be similar manning scales in all the ports and the question of having different manning scales at different ports of similar task does not appear to be proper and should not be allowed to continue. It is made clear that the proposals made and discussed in the earlier paragraphs regarding different activities of cargo handling or manning of vessels and crafts are finally accepted and are made applicable. Accordingly, the award is made.
8. The award passed by the Tribunal was also published in the Government gazzette. The petitioner association also filed WP No. 4207 of 2010 before this Court praying for issuance of a Mandamus directing the second respondent to implement the award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkatta dated 19.04.2006 in so far as it relates to the activities of the members of the petitioner association. It is also to be pointed out that various other Unions have filed Writ Petition Nos. 8245 and 8246 of 2010 before this Court challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is clear that there is a dispute between the major union and the rival union. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents 2 and 3 that some of the members of the petitioners association are not parties to the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore they have no locus standi to institute the present writ petition and the writ petition is therefore not maintainable. At the same time, the petitoiners pointed out that the petitioners should be treated as part of the management but they were not consulted before passing the impugned trade notice. Therefore, a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition has been raised before this Court. As regards maintainability, it must be stated that the petitioners form an integral part of the activities of the Chennai Port Trust and they have also earlier filed writ petitions before this Court for implementation of the award passed by the Tribunal. The implementation of the award or its non-implementation will have a bearing on the members of the petitioner association and therefore, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the members of the petitioner association.
9. The next point for consideration is whether the impugned trade notice is vitiated on the ground that it was passed without consulting the petitoiner association. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if the impugned trade notice is given effect to, the members of the petitioner association will have to endure 300% to 500% of the increase in cargo handling cost than the actual cost. In this context, it is to be pointed out that the respondents 2 and 3 in the counter has categorically stated that the award was implemented in certain areas. Further, a bilateral meeting held on 07.10.2009 with the recognised trade unions and it was decided to obtain the details of manning scales adopted by three mrjor ports namely Cochin, Vishakapattinam and New Mangalore Ports which have implemented the said award. Taking into consideration the difficulty in so far as it relates to the concerned port trust, the matter was discussed in detail by the parties concerned. For example, in Chennai Port Trust, for handling of general cargo, the Tribunal award recommends one Tally clerk per vessel whereas normally discharge operation in any vessel takes place through two or more hooks. According to the respondents, it is impossible for one tally clerk to tally the discharge of loading of cargo simultaneously from two or more hooks. It is pointed out that as per Section 42 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the Port acts as a bailee of the cargo and is required to take charge of the cargo for the purpose of performing the services and is required to give a receipt. Therefore, one tally clerk for a general cargo vessel as per the Tribunal Award is difficult to be implemented and there has to be one tally clerk per hook. In fact, in para-66 of the award of the Tribunal extracted above, it is clearly stated that the deployment should be strictly in accordance with the scales suggested and also according to the necessity which should be flexible and at the discretion of the management. Therefore, it is clear that a discretion is given to each of the Port Trusts for fixing the scales according to its necessity. In fact, earlier, a writ petition was filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in which status-quo was granted, which was later modified and parties have agreed to certain settlement. In the present case, the respondents 2 and 3 have expressed certain technical difficulties in implementing the award of the Tribunal. In this connection, a detailed discussion was made between the Management and the Union as contemplated under Section 18 (1) of the Act followed by issuance of an Addendum on 31.01.2014 for revision of manning scale, deploying integrated gants for cargo handling operations, revision of datum and piece rate etc.,
10. Admittedly, pursuant to the settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Act on 10.01.2014 and the consequent Addendum on 31.01.2014, the present trade notice was issued. In this connection, it has to be pointed out that under Section 48 of the three Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the Port has to frame scale of rates from time to time and the charges are to be collected from the Port Users in accordance with the scale of rates approved by the TAMP. As far as the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, a general revision of the scale of rates was made during the year 2006 and charges for supply of gangs to the Stevedores (port users) was based on the settlement of wage revision for Port and Dock Workers of the Major Ports on 02.08.2000, with effect from 01.01.1997. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to settlement of wage, wage revision for Class III and IV employees have been implemented with effect from 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2012 respectively and they are being paid in accordance with the wage settlement. Whereas, Port Users have been charged only for the supply of gangs as per the scale of rates revised during 2006. Therefore, this anomaly has been pointed out by the respondents mainly to contend why the impugned trade notice has been issued and why it is sought to be implemented at this stage. In other words, the port users are not paying the corresponding increase which necessiated the third respondent to issue the impugned trade notice. The impugned notice was issued after calling for a meeting with the parties concerned. Therefore, the main ground of attack on the part of the petitioners that the petitioners were not consulted before passing the impugned notice does not stand to ground. In fact, there is a memorandum of settlement effected under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, on 10.01.2014 followed by addendum on 31.01.2014. Even thereafter, a meeting was held on 07.02.2014 in which members of the petitioner association participated. The minutes of the meeting held on 07.02.2014 is also enclosed along with the typed set of papers. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 also brought to the notice of this Court a tabulation made by them indicating the time rate wages of different categories of workers for the purpose of stevedoring operations. The tabulation is extracted hereunder:-
CHENNAI PORT TRUST Time rate wages of different categories of workers for the purpose of stevedoring operations Sl.
No Category Wage rate as per existing scale of rates collected from Stevedores (In Rs.) Present wages paid by Port (in Rs.) (10.01.2014) Difference in Amount (C-B) Deficit borne by Chennai Port Trust (in %)
1. On Board Supervisor 921.20 2068.15 1146.95 124.51
2. Tally Clerk 801.30 1620.28 818.98 102.21
3. Tindal 626.00 1477.64 851.64 136.04
4. Maistry 600.27 1477.64 877.37 146.16
5. Winch Driver 575.30 1477.64 902.34 156.85
6. Signal Man 566.60 1369.24 802.64 141.66
7. Mazdoor 646.60 1369.24 722.64 111.76 Average percentage of the deficit borne by the Chennai Port Trust 131.31 Therefore, the Chennai Port Trust is paying an average of 131.31% excess towards the deficit between the wages colleted from the Stevedores and the wages actually paid in different categories of workman, thereby taking the ordeal of the financial burden on them all along.
11. Therefore, to set at naught the deficit between the wages collected from the Stevedores and the wages actually paid in different categories of workman, the third respondent has issued the impugned notice that too after a settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it cannot be called in question by the members of the petitioner association. Therefore, the whole argument of the petitioners that they were not consulted and consequently they have to pay the increase in cargo handling costs ranging from 300% to 500% more from the existing costs cannot be sustained. As mentioned above, the petitioner was a party to the process of implementation of manning scales as per the award passed by the Tribunal. In fact, a meeting was convened on 04.06.2013 which was attended by the Vice-President, Treasurer and Executive Committee members of the petitioner association. In fact, the members of the petitioner association enjoyed the payment made by the respondents 2 and 3 at enhanced rate, but the respondents 2 and 3 could not collect the corresponding charges from the Port Users for a considerable length of time. Even the present increase sought to be made is nominal and that cannot be called in question by the petitioner association.
12. Next it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that approval of TAMP was not obtained before effecting the revision of scales. No doubt the revised manning scales has to be approved by TAMP. In this context, Section 48 of the three Major Port Trusts Act could come to the rescue of the respondents 2 and 3, which contemplates that the Port can frame scales of rates from time to time and the charges are collected from the port users in accordance with the scales of rates approved by TAMP. In the present case, the tariff revisioning authority namely TAMP is seized of the matter and the revised manning scales to be effected by the respondents 2 and 3 has been accepted by all parties concerned, including the petitioner. Only after such consent, the third respondent issued the impugned notice for implementing the award passed by the Tribunal. When one of the parties to the conciliation process has accepted for implementation of the award, the other party i.e., the petitioner cannot have any objection. Furthermore, the increase sought to be made is only a nominal increase. According to the respondents 2 and 3, it works out to 50% to 110% more for the cargo handled by Chennai Port Trust and it is clearly spelt out in annexure B of the impugned notice. In fact, a distinction was made between on board employees and off board employees in respect of the wages to be paid. The third respondent is well within its power to modulate or fix the wages in tune with the consensus arrived at with the unions. Further, when consultative process was done in accordance with the requirements and the petitioner also participated in the meeting convened on 04.06.2013, the impugned order cannot be assailed by the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned notice issued by the third respondent which warrants interference by this Court.
13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02-06-2014 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1. Ministry of Shipping Transport Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi 110 001
2. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai
3. The Traffic Manager Chennai Port Trust Chennai B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh WP No. 4157 of 2014 02-06-2014