1 20-wp-8373-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8373 OF 2010 CEO, Panchagani Hill Station Nagar Parishad, Panchagani, & Another .. Petitioners. (Orig. Opponents) V/s. Shri Jaikumar C. Doshi .. Respondent. (Orig. Applicant) Mr. S.R.Karpe, for the Petitioners. Mr. Piyush Shah, for the Respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 13th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer dated 7th September, 2007 in Review Application No.2 of 2007, rejecting Petitioner’s Review Application No. 2 of 2007 on the ground that there is no specific provisions under the Act, granting authority to the Labour Court to review its own order. 2 20-wp-8373-10.sxw The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that they are mainly challenging the impugned order passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the Respondent’s application under section 33-C-(2) of Industrial Disputes Act,(herein after referred to as “the said Act”)1947, was entertained, though there was delay of more than 20 years. 3 I have gone through the application filed by the Respondents dated 3rd November, 2000 under section 33-C-(2) of the said Act of 1947 and also the say filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner in their say nowhere raised objection about the delay. Therefore, there is no question of allowing to the Petitioner to raise the objection on the ground of delay in the present Petition. 4 The Labour Court rejected the Review Application on the ground that there is no power to the Labour Court to review its own order relying on reported judgment of this Court in the matter of Sudhir J. Desai v/s Hyphosthite & Co., and Others reported in 2004 (iii) CLR page 671. 5 Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the Petition. Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. (K.K.TATED, J.)