1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1291 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.30 OF 1998(D) (DILIP BHAYYAJI KUNDLE.....Vs... DEPUTY ENGINEER AGRICULTURE SUB DIVISION..) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri J.L.Bhoot, Advocate for Applicant. Shri A.M.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 27, 2009. 1. This review is directed against judgment of this Court dated 30th January, 2006, whereby the respondent-employer's petition was allowed, setting aside award passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Bhandara in favour of the applicant workman. 2. According to the applicant, the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Bhandara by his award dated 20th September, 1996 has directed reinstatement of the applicant with continuity w.e.f. 01.09.1986 and back wages from 08.09.1992. This order was 2 challenged by the employer by filing Writ Petition No. 30/1998, before this Court. Before the petition came to be disposed of, the Government of Maharashtra, Public Works Department, passed resolution dated 24th April, 2001, whereby a number of Mazdoors were brought on converted regular temporary (CRT) establishment. The resolution also provided that employees who had filed proceedings should withdraw those proceedings and the employer i.e. Government was also to withdraw the proceedings challenging orders of the lower courts. Thus, in terms of the resolution, the employer was obliged to withdraw Writ Petition No. 30/1998. It was necessary for the employer to bring this position to the notice of the learned Assistant Government Pleader who was arguing the matter, so that judgment dated 30th January, 2006 could have been obviated. According to the applicant, the judgment dated 30th January, 2006 needs to be reviewed on this count. Today, he has also filed an affidavit stating that he did not have in his possession the relevant documents when the petition 3 was argued before this Court and therefore, he did not inform his lawyer. 3. On behalf of the respondent/ employer a submission has been filed, wherein it is admitted that during pendency of the petition resolution dated 24.04.2001 was issued by the Government and that in pursuance of clauses 2 and 3 of the resolution the applicant had withdrawn his proceedings before the Labour Court at Bhandara. It is also stated that in pursuance of the said resolution a compromise petition was prepared and forwarded to the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya. But could not be filed before this Court in Writ Petition No.30/19928 and this is how the petition came to be disposed of on 30th January, 2006. 4. Even so, the learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently argued that this would not justify the review of the judgment dated 30th January, 2006 4 since it is not shown that there is any error apparent on the face of record or there is some mistake or there is discovery of any important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that on applicant's own contentions he not only knew of the Government Resolution but had also withdrawn his proceedings from the Labour Court in terms of the said resolution. Therefore, it is not that any new matter has been discovered. He submitted that the judgment is not shown to suffer from any mistake or error apparent on the face of record and therefore, it cannot be reviewed. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submitted that it was the duty of the employer to acquaint the Government Pleader incharge of the case that a compromise petition was to be filed in the petition. The applicant believed that the employer would follow the dictat of the Government Resolution 5 and never ever dreamt that he would be thrown out because of employer's going back on the question of compliance of Government Resolution dated 24.04.2001. Relying on a judgment of the Apex Court in Rajender Singh Vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nocobar Islands, reported at 2005(107) FLR 1069 (SC) the learned counsel submitted that his application for review ought to be allowed as there is other sufficient reasons for reviewing the order. 6. It is clear that, in this case, the State had led the employee to believe that the proceedings would be withdrawn. It is clear from the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent by one Shrawan M. Kuhikar, Sub-Divisional Officer that the compromise petition was prepared and forwarded to the Secretary of Public Works Department. Had the compromise petition been filed in Writ Petition No.30/1998 the petition would have certainly been disposed of in terms of the compromise and judgment dated 30th January, 2006 6 would not have been delivered. 7. In view of this, the application is allowed. 8. Judgment dated 30th January, 2006 is set aside. Writ Petition No.30/1998 is restored to file and shall be taken up for final disposal on 22nd June, 2009. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader undertakes to communicate the Secretary, Public Works Department to find out whether there is any such compromise as is referred to in the affidavit of Shri Kuhikar and place it before the Court on 22nd June, 2009. 10. Steno copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per rules. JUDGE RR.