IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.43 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1637 OF 2004 United Labour Union.......Petitioner Versus Air India & Ors...........Respondents Mr.K.K. Singhvi, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Susheel Mahadeshwar, for the Petitioner Mr. C.U. Singh i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms.Suchitra Kamble with Mr. Suresh Kumar & D.A. Dubey i/b. Y.C. Kaushik, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.R.SATHE, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.R.SATHE, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.R.SATHE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE :6th October, 2004 :6th October, 2004 :6th October, 2004 P.C.: . This review petition seeks review of the order of this Court dated 14th July, 2004 on two counts. It is firstly contended that in respect of a canteen at Delhi the Appropriate Government had made a reference and that has been answered in favour of the workmen by holding that they are employees of Air India. It is secondly contended that considering the nature of the order being administrative the appropriate Government could not have decided the matter on merits. . On behalf of the respondents,their learned Counsel contends that the issue in the reference before the Central Industrial Tribunal, Delhi was different considering the contention therein that it was a statutory canteen which was maintained by Air India. In the instant case it is pointed out that material was produced to show that the canteen which was being run was used by the employees of Air India, Indian Airlines and Tatas. It is, therefore, submitted that it was not a case of maintenance of a statutory canteen under the provisions of the Factories Act. The order of the Industrial Tribunal has been challenged by filing a Writ Petition and presently there is a stay. In respect of the other contention it is further submitted that it is not a case for review, but if the Review Applicants are still aggrieved can challenge the order before the Apex Court. 2. Having considered the contentions we are of the opinion that this would not be a fit case to exercise the powers of review. In so far as the contention that the Appropriate Government could not decide the matter on merits, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 915. The issue was in issue and has been answered on merits. No review is, therefore, permisible on that count. 4. In so far as the first contention is concerned, considering the facts involved in the reference when the award was made and also as pointed out by the learned Counsel that the Award of the Tribunal has been challenged before the Delhi High Court where stay has been granted and the finding of fact in the present case we do not think that this is a fit case for review of the Judgment and order of this Court dated 14th July, 2004. In the other case the award seems to be based on the fact that a canteen had to be maintained considering the provisions of the Factories Act. 5. In the light of that Review Petition rejected. (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) J.) (S.R. (S.R. (S.R. SATHE, J.) SATHE, J.) SATHE, J.)