:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 733 OF 2008 K.R.S. Narayanan ..Petitioner Vs. Hiralal Singh and anr. ..Respondents Smt. Sushma Singh for petitioner. Ms. Jane Cox for respondent no.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : : : February 29, 2008. February 29, 2008. February 29, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Complaint (ULP) No. 31 of 1991 an order was passed below application at Exh.U-3 directing the company to deposit the amount of subsistence allowance and an amount of Rs.35,100/- was paid when Contempt Petition No.116 of 1992 had come up before this court. However, the remaining amount was not paid on the ground that the employer faced financial difficulties and, therefore, Misc. Application No. 16 of 2001 came to be filed under Section 50 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 for recovery of the subsistence :2: allowance. By an order dated 13/1/2004 the Industrial Court directed to pay an amount of Rs.55,142/-. The petitioner filed Review Application (ULP) No. 2 of 2006 and prayed for recall of the order dated 13/1/2004 and instead to direct payment of Rs.45,276.92 paise only. The Review Application came to be rejected by the Industrial Court on 12/7/2007. 2. Under the scheme of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, an application for review lies only for the orders passed under Section 30(2) of the said Act and, therefore, the Review Application was considered only for correction of the amount payable. It was noted by the Industrial Court that the amount of subsistence allowance was payable for 61 months and 8 days and the said amount, as per the petitioner, would not be more than Rs.35,277/-. In the order under review passed on 13/1/2004 the Industrial Court had recorded that the subsistence allowance was directed to be paid for the month of April 1994 till the date of dismissal from the service i.e. 8/6/1999. Whereas, it is the case of the petitioner that the said amount was payable from 1/4/1995 till the date of dismissal. The learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to place on :3: record the documentary proof for the payment of the subsistence allowance from April 1994 to March, 1995 and no such record could be placed before this court. It is apparent that the Review Application was filed only on the ground that the subsistence allowance was payable from 1/4/1995 and not from 1/4/1994 and on the ground that the subsistence allowance from April 1994 to March, 1995 was already paid. There is no supporting document to this contention regarding having paid the subsistence allowance for 12 months prior to April 1995. Hence, the Industrial Court was justified in rejecting the Review Application. 3. The petition must, therefore, fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. Recovery proceedings expedited. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)