1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2009 Peter Alexander D souza ’ ... Petitioner Vs. The Director of General Shipping and others ... Respondents Shri Jaiprakash Sawant for the petitioner Shri D.A. Atharle with Shri V. B. Tiwari for respondents 1 to 3 Shri V. N. Tayde i/by Shri Piush Shah for respondent 4 CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 16th November, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner was working with the fourth respondent i.e. M/s Chevron Manning Services Ltd. The petitioner s services were ’ terminated by the fourth respondent with effect from 24.9.2004. The petitioner is aggrieved by this. According to the petitioner he raised dispute as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Central Government made Reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT for short). According to the petitioner, he has withdrawn the said Reference on 21.12.2008. 2 2. It appears that on 2.4.2008, the petitioner has filed an application before the Director General of Shipping i.e. the first respondent praying that his dispute may be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. By letter dated 16.2.2009, the first respondent has informed the petitioner that the subject matter is sub-judice and is pending adjudication before the CGIT and it is not procedurally feasible for the first respondent to intervene in the matter at this stage. It appears that the first respondent has not been informed that the petitioner has withdrawn the Reference which was pending before the CGIT. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however states that the petitioner has informed the first respondent that he has withdrawn the Reference. We do not want to go into this controversy. 3. In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file an application before the first respondent informing him that the petitioner has withdrawn his pending Reference before the CGIT. The first respondent should then pass a reasoned order independently and in accordance with law. If the first respondent feels that the petitioner s application is not maintainable, ’ then he should pass a reasoned order to that effect and communicate it 3 to the petitioner so that the petitioner can challenge it in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner will make appropriate application before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from today. On such application being made, the first respondent shall pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion as to whether the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is under the Merchants Shipping Act, 1958 or not. That question may be decided independently and in accordance with law. 5. The order passed by the first respondent be communicated to the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( RANJANA DESAI, J.) jpc/-