MCC No.1058 of 2009 CLMA No. 11665 of 2009 In WPMS No.9 of 2008 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for respondent No.2. Delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the recall/review application is condoned. A recall application No.1058 of 2009 has been filed by respondent No.2 contending that I was a counsel in Writ Petition No.18627 of 1986 re- numbered as Writ Petition No.3762 (M/S) of 2001 and therefore the order dated 19/11/2009 passed by me in WP No.9 of 2008 should be recalled. It transpires that against an award of the Labour Court, writ petition No.18627 of 1986 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by the U.P. State Electricity Board. It is alleged that I was a counsel who had presented the writ petition at Allahabad. This writ petition was ultimately transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand and, this writ petition was re-numbered as writ petition No.3762 (M/S) of 2001 which was finally decided by a judgment dated 25th July, 2005. At the time when the writ petition was decided, the petitioner had engaged another counsel who had argued the matter. Based on the said award and judgment of the High Court, proceedings u/S 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was initiated and an order dated 03/12/2007 was passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani which was challenged by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. in writ petition No. 9 (M/S) of 2008 which petition I had decided by a judgment dated 19/11/2009. The fact that I was a counsel in writ petition No. 18627 of 1986 was not known to the learned counsel for the parties nor was this fact brought to the knowledge of the Court. The record of writ petition No. 18627 of 1986 re-numbered as writ petition No.3762 (M/S) of 2001 was not before the Court. Only the judgment passed in the said writ petition was annexed as annexure-7 to the writ petition which indicates that one Shri Vinay Kumar, Advocate had appeared for the petitioner. The said judgment does not indicate that I was a counsel in that writ petition. In the light of the aforesaid, since the fact that I was a counsel in an earlier writ petition at Allahabad was not brought to the knowledge of the Court, the controversy involved in the present writ petition was decided on merit after hearing the counsel for the parties and the judgment was delivered by me in open Court immediately upon the conclusion of the arguments. The mere fact that I was a counsel in an earlier writ petition has no bearing in so far as the controversy which has been decided on merit in the present writ petition. The present writ petition is against the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed u/S 6-H (1) which was passed pursuant to an award of the Labour Court. The writ petition in which I was a counsel at Allahabad was ultimately decided by this Court upon its transfer from Allahabad High Court to Uttarakhand and was argued by another counsel in the year 2005. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment should not be recalled on this ground especially when no bias or prejudice has been alleged. The review/recall application is consequently dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 09.02.2010 Shiv