IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.56 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1798 OF 2009 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Abhishek s/o. Vidya Nand Singh ... Respondent Mr. Minoo Siodia with Ms. Raina Bhagatwala i/by M/s. Rustamji & Ginwala for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Naidu i/by M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. for the respondent. ALONGWITH REVIEW PETITION NO.57 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1799 OF 2009 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Prakash Raghunandan Niranjan ... Respondent Mr. Minoo Siodia with Ms. Raina Bhagatwala i/by M/s. Rustamji & Ginwala for the petitioner. Mr. P.B. Shah i/by Mr. Vivek Salunkhe for the respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. Heard. 2. This is an application for review filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation primarily on the following grounds: i) The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation did not take a stand that the petitioners were probationers. In fact, according to him, they continued as trainee officers as their training period itself has not ended and no letter of permanent absorption was issued in their favour. ii) The petitioners were called for enquiry and they were unable to explain their conduct of not filling the application form properly and in accordance with rules. iii) The petitioners are not from Bombay University and only one has done his graduation from Bombay University. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-non-applicant has contended that the present application is not even maintainable and it has no ground for review as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 read with section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. He further contends that the grounds taken in the review application are not correct. 4. We do not consider it necessary to examine this controversy in detail. Suffice it to note that even if we consider the stand of the respondent-corporation to be fair that respondents were trainee officers, still it will make no difference on the merits of the case and the conclusion arrived at by us. Besides this, we may notice that vide letter received by the petitioners on 14th June, 2008, the respondent- Corporation had informed all the concerned and the petitioners that consequent to the revision in the Corporation's policy, training period would be six months instead of one year from the date of joining and on successful completion of training period, applicant would be absorbed in the regular service in the Corporation. In the same letter, it was also indicated that they would be on probation for a period of six months. It is on this basis the court had described them as probationers. 3. It has been brought to our notice and it remains a fact that no separate letter of permanent absorption was issued by the Corporation to the respondents. Without accepting but even it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the petitioners were not probationers but trainee officers still compliance to the rules and observance of natural justice would be essential. 4. As far as second contention is concerned, the Corporation has not even cared to notice that in paras 23 and 24 of the judgment, the facts referred to have already been noticed about the respondent approaching the Corporation and Corporation officers asking him to resign and ultimately issuing termination order without complying with the principles of natural justice. We reiterate that view and find no merit in the petition. Dismissed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an oral prayer for stay of this order. We see no reason to do so. Hence request is declined. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.