1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 780 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 346 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 176 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shalikram S. Waghade ] WITH Civil Application No. 781 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 315 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 172 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. F.B. Gedam ] WITH Civil Application No. 782 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 349 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 178 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.S. Ingle ] WITH Civil Application No. 783 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 343 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 175 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.B. Marwadi ] WITH Civil Application No.784 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 335 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 173 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.H. Kadu ] WITH Civil Application No.785 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 351 of 2008 IN 2 Letters Patent Appeal No. 177 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.V. Pimple ] WITH Civil Application No.786 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No.339 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 174 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.R. Choudhar ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.C. Marpakwar, Adv., for applicant. Mr. S.D. Thakur, Adv., for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 18th June,2008. Heard. The application for condonation of delay in filing application for review is not seriously opposed. Accepting the reasons stated in the application to be sufficient, delay of 89 days caused in filing of application for review is condoned. Judge Judge |Hedau| 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 346 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 176 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shalikram S. Waghade ] WITH Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 315 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 172 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. F.B. Gedam ] With Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 349 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 178 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.S. Ingle ] WITH Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 343 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 175 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.B. Marwadi ] WITH Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 335 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 173 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.H. Kadu ] WITH Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 351 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 177 of 2003 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.V. Pimple ] WITH Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No.339 of 2008 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 174 of 2003 4 [Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.R. Choudhar ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.C. Marpakwar, Adv., for applicant. Mr. S.D. Thakur, Adv., for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 18th June,2008. 1. Heard. 2. Admittedly, the applicant had moved Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the Judgment sought to be reviewed. The Special Leave Petition has been summarily dismissed. 3. This is an application for review along with similar applications in connected Letters Patent Appeals disposed of by common judgment dated 11th September, 2007. 4. According to applicant, there is an error apparent in the judgment, in as much as in para 18, this Court has observed as follows, though the applicant had cited judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/w Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena [2001 III CLR 1025], which 5 is directly on the point in issue :- “18. The learned Advocates for the parties have not cited any decision on the point as to in what manner the situation shall be dealt with if the case before the Court is of such a nature where the workmen are not employed through contractor, but the employer has barely denied the employer-employee relationship.” 5. No other ground is urged. 6. Learned Advocate has placed reliance on reported Judgments in cases of [1] Hindusan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & ors. [2001 III CLR 1025], [2] M/s. Singer Sewing Machine Co. Vs. P.O., Labour Court IV, Kanpur & ors. [1998 [79] FLR 881], and [3] The Employers in relation to Punjab National Bank Vs. Ghulam Dastagir [1978 LAB. I.C. 519]. 7. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the Judgment in case of Hindustan Coca Cola, since the same has been dealt with in the judgment dated 11th September, 2007. 8. Reliance placed on other cases referred to in para 6 is on the point where the employee was engaged by the Officer of the Bank, but he claimed that the employment was with the Bank. 9. Relying upon Judgment in case of Lily 6 Thomas etc., etc., Vs. Union of India and ors. [AIR 2000 SC 1650], learned Adv., Mr. Thakur submitted that error apparent on the face of record cannot mean any other sufficient reason. He, therefore, argued that substitution of Judgment on grounds, whatsoever, is not permissible. He then points out that these judgments were not cited while arguing Letters Patent Appeals. 10. In the judgment, we have dealt with the aspect, namely whether jurisdiction of Labour Court under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act would be ousted just by disclaimer as to employer-employee relationship, and when the employer also claims engagement of worker was not through contractor, held that in such eventuality, the jurisdiction of Labour Court would not be ousted. 11. The effect of Judgment of this Court is to restore the Writ Petition for disposal according to law and, therefore, the question as to whether on facts of the case, complainants are employees of the employer is still open for scrutiny. 12. The ground raised by applicant is not at all in the nature of raising of point of error apparent on the face of record. 7 13. In view of the above, we find that no grounds have been made out for review. Review application is, therefore, dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau| 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24