1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.194 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITIN NO.2844 OF 2010 (Pradhnya Shikshan Sanstha and another - Vs. - Vijay Wamanrao Bhowate and others) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri H.A.Deshpande, counsel for applicants/petitioners Shri S.Borkar, counsel for respondent no.1 Shri A.M.Deshpande, AGP for respondent no.2 CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 8th APRIL, 2011. This is an application moved by the petitioner management for review of the order dated 29.11.2010 passed on Civil Application No.2775 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.2844 of 2010. The School Tribunal had passed an order of reinstatement and payment of 50% backwages to the …..2/- 2 respondent employee. This is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. On 6.8.2010 this Court has passed an order which reads as under, “Heard Shri H.A.Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner. Rule. Hearing expedited. Shri S.Borkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri A.A.Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.3 waives notice. Stay of reinstatement, subject to petitioners depositing 50% of what has been awarded by the School Tribunal i.e. 25% of total backwages with the registry of this Court by 30.9.2010.” On 29.1.2010 this Court passed an order Civil Application No.2775 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below-- “...... After hearing the parties, it is apparent that stay granted by this Court was conditional. The School Tribunal has awarded 50% back wages and, therefore, it is apparent that back wages from the date of termination till the date of adjudication by School Tribunal need to be considered. There is no question of calculating back wages from said period. at basic wages. The …..3/- 3 amount deposited by the petitioner – management, therefore, is not in compliance with the orders of this Court. Interim orders granted are, therefore, vacated.” The learned counsel appearing for the applicants/petitioners has urged that there are no reasons recorded for vacating the order and the Court has proceeded on misconception of the fact that the order of reinstatement and backwages follows that the increments are also required to be considered while calculating the payment of backwages. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095, Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others for the proposition that if the order is permitted to stand it would lead to failure of justice and hence this can be a ground for review. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (I) Scale 121; Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & others to urge that the review can be claimed for any other sufficient reason. The School Tribunal has passed an order of …..4/- 4 reinstatement with 50% backwages. This Court had stayed the order of reinstatement subject to the petitioners depositing 25% of the total backwages payable to the respondents by an order dated 8.8.2010. The petitioners appeared to have calculated 25% amount of backwages on the basis of the basic wages payable to the respondents. It is neither the direction of the School Tribunal nor of this Court to make the payment of backwages at the rate of basic wages excluding the amount of increment which is due and payable to the respondents. This Court has passed an order on 29.11.2010 holding that there is no question of calculating the backwages payable at the rate of basic wages. The petitioners have failed to calculate 25% amount of total backwages and to deposit it in this Court. For this reason, this Court has vacated the interim order of stay to the reinstatement granted on 6.10.2010. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no reasons are required for vacating the order is not correct. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel that the Court has proceeded on misconception of fact as alleged also cannot be accepted. Even otherwise there …..5/- 5 is no question of failure of justice if the order is allowed to stand for the reason that such an order can be set right if the ultimate decision goes in favour of the management. There is no case made out for review the application is, therefore, reviewed. JUDGE BRwankhede …../-