1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. (CAO) No. 676/2010 in Misc. Civil Application (Review) St. No. 9702/10 in L.P.A. No. 9/2008 (D) in WRIT PETITION NO. 762/1996 (Shivlal Narayan Bhoge and ors. .vs. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola and another. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.D. Chopde, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. U.A. Patil, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mrs. T.D. Khade, AGP for Respondent no.2. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 18, 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 30, 2010 1. Heard. 2. The applicants seek condonation of delay of 809 days in filing review petition against the order dated 20.2.2008 passed disposing letters patent appeal preferred by them. 3. The applicants had filed a complaint before the Industrial Court regarding unfair labour practice of the respondent no.1 of failing to regularise their 2 services and pay them equal pay for equal work in spite of being in continuous service without any break. Some other agricultural labourers of respondent no.1 had also filed complaints before the Industrial Court urging unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent No.1. The Industrial Court by common judgment dated 21.11.1995 allowed said complaints and directed the respondent No.1 to take immediate steps for moving the State Government and thereafter to absorb them in those posts. 4. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 8.11.2006 by setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court allowed Writ Petition No. 762/1996 preferred by respondent no.1 against the said order. 5. The L.P.A. No. 9/2008 preferred by the applicants against the same was disposed by the Division Bench by order dated 20.2.2008 with the observation that the applicants would be absorbed against the permanent vacancy as and when such vacancy is available and that too, would be done as per waiting list. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 25.8.2008 allowed the applicants to withdraw the Special Leave Petition No. 8717/2008 preferred by the applicants against the said order passed in L.P.A. with liberty to applicants to file review petition before this Court. 7. The learned counsel urged that for the first time in the first week of 2010 the applicants came to know about said order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the 3 Hon’ble Apex Court, after the respondent No.1 issued an order dated 1.4.2010 withdrawing its earlier order of the year 2004 granting equal wages to the applicants on par with the regular labourers. The applicants then inquired with their counsel appearing in the Apex Court about the said order. He informed them that the letter/communication regarding the said order was duly sent by him to the applicants. 8. The learned counsel urged that though the said communication was sent, the same was not received by the applicants. The same resulted in occurring of a delay in applicants’ preferring present review petition. 9. The learned counsel for applicants urged for condoning the delay occurred in filing the present petition on the count of same being not intentional due to applicants being under bona fide impression that their matters were still pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court till withdrawal of their benefits by respondent no. 1 by withdrawing earlier order of year 2004 granting all the benefits of regularisation to them. It was urged that due to the vacation the further delay of 1 month occurred in preferring the review petition. It was submitted that non-condoning of delay would result in applicants suffering irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by any terms. 10. The reference to the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Apex Court reveals that by the same the leave as sought by the applicants to withdraw special leave petition preferred by them for filing review petition before this Court. Having regard to the same, it is 4 difficult to accept the submission that by the said order the Apex Court has allowed the applicants to withdraw the SLP to file review petition as canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants. Similarly the leave as stated being sought by the applicants, it is difficult to accept that the applicants would be unaware of the same. 11. Such a conclusion emerges as the counsel for the applicants is not likely to have withdrawn special leave petition without the instructions from the clients. Having regard to the same, it is difficult to accept that the submission canvassed that applicants became aware of the order passed by the Apex Court only after the earlier order granting benefits was withdrawn by the respondent no.1. On the contrary, it appears that the applicants had chosen to continue enjoying the benefits under the earlier order of respondent no.1 instead of preferring the petition for review and after withdrawal of the said benefits, took the steps for preferring review petition. Such a conclusion is apparent as even the counsel for applicants then informed the applicants of having sent the order of Apex Court to the applicants. 12. Apart from the same even thereafter the applicants had not taken immediate steps for preferring review petition. The applicants had not specified any specific date regarding all the relevant events for accepting that there were no laches on their part of taking the prompt steps after they realized about the order passed by the Apex Court. 13. Thus taking overall view of the matter, it is apparent that the applicants have failed to show 5 sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 809 days in preferring the review petition. Thus, the application deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE halwai