IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.43 of 2005 JANKI CHOUDHARY Versus THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. ----------- 10. 7.7.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation(hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). 2. This civil review application is directed against the order dated 21.5.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5242 of 2004 whereunder this Court directed the petitioner to assail the order bearing Memo No. 127 dated 3.3.2003, Annexure-1 to the writ application passed by the Administrator of the Corporation imposing minor punishment over the petitioner before the appropriate labour court as this Court was of the view that the petitioner being a Section Officer in the Corporation was also a workman. After the said directions were issued petitioner examined the observations of this Court contained in order dated 21.5.2004 and filed this review application asserting that the petitioner not being a workman cannot avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. By filing counter affidavit Corporation has confirmed the position that petitioner being a Section Officer in the Corporation is not a workman. In view of the admission of the Corporation that petitioner is not a workman, the orders of this Court dated 21.5.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5242 of 2004 is recalled and the said writ petition is taken up for admission. 4. Perused the order dated 3.3.2003 contained in Annexure- - 2 - 1 to the writ application and also heard counsel for the petitioner and the Corporation. It appears from perusal of the order dated 21.5.2004, Annexure-1 that the said order was passed in consideration of the second show cause reply filed by the petitioner in connection with the allegation that he made recommendation in favour of the ply owner of four buses which were under the control of the Corporation without the owner executing the agreement and making deposit of security amount which caused loss of Rs. 8,000/-(Eight thousand) to the Corporation. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner never made such recommendations. If that be so petitioner is at liberty to seek review of the order dated 3.3.2003, Annexure-1 to the writ application passed by the Administrator of the Corporation. 6. With the aforesaid observations both the Civil Review application as also C.W.J.C. No. 5242 of 2004 are disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)