^ ,r <10'/ BEFORE THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH AT C^ BILASPUR (C.G^ , ^ _ ^\ e^-^- Review Petition No. '7 / /2008 r)KSV"VA^f^"' (arising outofW.P.No.260/2000Jl . '"T .S^T.^. ^^s^y" Madhya Bharat Papers Ltd., Champa, Distt. Champa-Janjgir, Through : Its Personnel Manager, <?,'3; Applfcant Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition ^a Vs. Jawahar Lal Gopal, S/o. Shri Ram Gopal, aged about 35 years, at office assistant, Madhya Bharat Papers Ltd., Champa, R/o.Barpali Chowk, Champa, Distt. Champa-Janjgir, Members Judge Industrial Court, Raipur, bench Raipur (M.P.) now (C.G.) Petitioner in Writ Petition Respondents IIEVIEW PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 23.06.2008 I>ASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P. N0. 260/2000 IN CASE OF 3AWAHAR LAL GOPAL VS. MEMBER JUDGE IliDUSTRIAL COURT. RAIPUR & OTHERS TheLjartr>li^art1- n^i->-ict/-t al-\/-t^/<-i n-*^<~<- l-.i ^ mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 44 of 2008 APPLICANT Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition. Madhya Bharat Papers Ltd. RESPONDENTS Petitioner in Writ Petition. VERSUS Jawahar Lal Gopal & another. REVIEW PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 23.06.2008 PASSED BY HON'BLE mOH COURT IN W.P. N0. 260/2000 IN CASE OF JAWAHAR LAL GOPAL VS. MEMBER JUDGE INDUSTRIAL COURT, RAIPUR & OTHERS. SBLH^n'ble ShrLS^tish K.Agnihotn^J, Present: Shri N.K.Vyas, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the non-applicant No. 1. •t< ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 08th day of April, 2010) Heard on I.A. No^_l, This is an application for condonation of delay of 55 days in fding review petition for review oforder dated 23.06.2008 passed in W.P. No. 260/2000. There is a delay of 55 days in filing the review petition. The petitioner has filed this application for condonation ofdelay stating that the petitioner could not file Vakalatnama, thus, there was soiue delay. In response, the first respondent opposes condonation of delay. However, having regard to the facts situation ofthe case, delay in Eling the review petition is condoned. By fhis review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A/l) whereby the petition filed by the first respondent herein, was allowed to the extent of grant of 50% backwages and ofher ^' ^ allowances from fhe date oftermination i.e. 09.05.1991 till his reinstatement on 17.05.1999. Shri Vyas, leamed counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the review petitioner, (respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 260/2000), could not appear in the matter, though the Advocates had vakalatnama in their favour for their appearance on behalfofthe review petitioner, thus review petitioner may be granted liberty to put forward its case as the first respondent herein (petitioner in W.P. No. 260/2000) has suppressed material facts and made misrepresentation before this Court. Shri Vyas submits that the impugned order dated 21.01.1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Appeal No. 521/MPIR AcV96, was earlier challenged by the review petitioner before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 944/1999. The leamed Single Judge dismissed the said petition filed by the review petitioner on 11.03.1999 (Annexure A/2) holding that the order passed by the Industrial Court was based purely on appreciation of evidence and the conclusions drawn by the Industrial Court was upheld. Against the order of leamed Single Judge, the review petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 190/2000 before the leamed Division Bench. The leamed Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the review petitioner vide order dated 11.08.2000 (Annexure A/3). Thus, the facts that the impugned order dated 21.01.1999 passed by the ladustrial Court, was taken to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 944/1999 and thereafter to the Division Bench ofthe High Court in L.P.A. No. 190/2000, and the order passed by the Industrial Court was upheld, was deliberately suppressed by the writ petitioner in fhe instant case and thereafter during course of hearing. On :A--t'ii!!e<.. ^'^^ ; '"^:. - », •^-^-^ t ^ ^-t^ / '-.•f.-^y" 34 suppression of material facts, this Court granted relief of 50% backwages with all allowances till reinstatement in service. Shri Kale, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 herein submits that the order passed in W.P. No. 944 of 1999 and thereafter the order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 190 of 2000, was exparte. Thus, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1 herein to bring the above-stated facts before this Court. This Court has passed the order dated 23.06.2008 on ment. Accordingly, the application for review ofthe order dated 23.06.2008 passed in W.P. No. 260 of 2000 is allowed and the order dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A/l) is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number. List the matter i.e. W.P. No. 260 of2000 for hearmg. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Amit &•