Kerala High Court
Mathew M.A vs Cochin Shipyard Ltd on 15 February, 2013
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY2014/19TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 1577 of 2014 (V)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
MATHEW M.A., AGED 60 YEARS,
CODE NO.2589, JUNIOR CHARGE MEMO-BA,
SHIP REPAIR DEPARTMENT, COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD.
RESIDING AT MADUKKAMOOTTIL, CHILAVANOOR SOUTH,
KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-20.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
SRI.R.SANJITH
SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,
PEPRUMANOOR P.O., COCHIN-682015,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR),
COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., KOCHI-682015.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (VIGILANCE),
COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., KOCHI-682015.
BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-07-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 1577 of 2014 (V)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERREDD BY THE PETITIONER.
P2: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.4541/2013
DATED 15/02/2013.
P4: COPY OF THE INVITATION SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY HIS SON.
P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/13.
P6: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 07/01/2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No.1577 of 2014
--------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner an employee of the Cochin Shipyard, who is presently under suspension, filed this writ petition on 16.1.2014 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to grant a No Objection Certificate to him, so as to enable him to apply for Visa to travel to United States of America.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.S.P.Chaly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after obtaining the permission of the trial court, where he is being prosecuted, the petitioner travelled to United States of America and has also returned to India within the time limit stipulated in the order passed by the trial Magistrate and therefore, leaving open the petitioner's right to defend the action if any proposed to be taken by the employer against him for travelling abroad without their prior permission, the writ petition may be closed as infructuous.
In the light of the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is closed as infructuous reserving liberty with the petitioner to defend the action if any proposed or taken against him by the employer for travelling abroad without their prior permission.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
vps
O.P.(C) 2
O.P.(C) 3