on the ground of maintainability would not alleviate or reduce the docket explosion in stead of disposing the same on merits. Also, it is to be looked into that after these long years, if the petitioners are relegated to go before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, after some years, one way or the other if a decision is made by the Labour Court, even against such Award to be passed by the Labour Court, the aggrieved party would come before this Court as no other appeal remedy further available against the Award to be passed by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. Yet, again the parties would involve in the docket explosion process by filing writ petitions before this Court. Therefore, looking from any angle, after entertaining the writ petition, after several years, the petitioners cannot be shown the door to go before the alternative remedy, i.e., the Industrial Tribunal. Moreover, in the present cases, since there has been no dispute on the factual matrix except the legal position based on the Settlement as well as the orders passed by the Chennai Port Trust, on the basis of the arguments, these two cases are considered to be the cases to be entertained by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. Hence, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents/Port Trust is, for the aforestated reasons, rejected.
