1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. REVIEW PETITION (LODG.) NO.33 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2185 OF 2006 Harinder S. Singh ..Review Petitioner. Vs. Electro Penumatic & Hydraulics (I) Ltd. ..Respondent. ..... Mr. R.D. Bhat for the Petitioner. Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 24th October, 2007. P.C. : 1. A review has been sought of the order of this Court dated 30th August, 2006. This Court by the judgment and order of which a review has been sought dealt with a challenge to the finding of the Labour Court that the disciplinary enquiry was not fair and proper and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. The Court came to the conclusion that each of the grounds which weighed with the Labour Court was erroneous. 2 However, from a reading of the order it would emerge that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman sought to urge certain additional submissions in support of the contention that the enquiry was not fair and proper. While observing that the grounds which weighed with the Labour Court were totally unfounded and lacking in merit, this Court observed that ordinarily the order of the Labour Court would have to be set aside while remanding the matter for determining the remaining questions. However, in the interest of fairness, the Court was of the view that the workman may be given an opportunity of urging the additional submissions made before this Court in the proceedings at the first instance. Counsel appearing for the management did not oppose the remand. The order of this Court records that both the learned counsel had stated before the Court that it would be in the interest of justice if the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in the proceedings were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court for reconsideration of the question as regards the fairness of the enquiry and the question as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer suffer from any perversity in the 3 light of the observations made in the order of this Court. This Court, however, clarified that while it would be open to the workman to urge any additional point that he sought to urge in regard to the fairness of the enquiry and of the perversity of the findings, that would not cover those questions on which a finding has been arrived at in the course of the judgment of this Court. It was in these circumstances that by consent the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court respectively were quashed and set aside. 2. The attention of the Court has now been drawn to the fact that in pursuance of the order of remand, the parties have participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. By a judgment and order dated 31st July, 2007 the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings were not perverse. It would be necessary to observe that the correctness of this order of the Labour Court upon remand does not fall for interference in these proceedings and consequently all the rights and contentions of the parties including 4 the right of the workman to challenge the order in appropriate proceedings are kept open. However, the submission urged on behalf of the workman is that a review of the order of remand passed by this Court on 30th August, 2006 is called for to the extent to which this Court observed that the Labour Court would deal with the matter upon remand in the light of the observations contained in the order of this Court. In my view, there is no merit in the Review Petition. Firstly, the order of remand was confined to the additional submissions which the workman sought to urge in regard to the fairness of the enquiry and the perversity of the findings. The matters which were concluded by the judgment of this Court dated 30th August, 2006 could not be agitated before the Labour Court. Secondly, it was apparent from the order of this Court that the order of remand was passed by consent of the learned counsel. A review, therefore, is clearly not maintainable. Thirdly, as already noted above parties have in pursuance to the order of remand participated before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has already rendered its findings in the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2007. It would be open to the Review Petitioner to take 5 recourse to such remedies as are open in law to challenge the judgment of the Labour Court upon remand. Hence, no case for review has been made out. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, to be urged in such proceedings as may be instituted to challenge the subsequent order of the Labour Court dated 31st July, 2007. The Review Petition is lacking in merit and is dismissed.