( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Review Application No. 21 of 2011 (In Writ Petition No. 10764 of 2010) Bhausaheb Yashwant Rashinkar, Age : 66 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Sanjay Nagar, Shrirampur, Taluka : Shrirampur, .. Applicants District : Ahmednagar, (Original and 7 others. petitioners) versus The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.D. Pokharkar, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vinay Anjanvatikar, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ ( 2 ) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.D. Pokharkar, learned Counsel appearing for the review applicants; Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Vinay Anjanvatikar, learned Counsel holding for Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. 2. Mr. S.D. Pokharkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, argues that the statement recorded by this Court, in paragraph 1 of the order while disposing of Writ Petition, was not made by him. The said portion is as under :- " The difference is worked out by contending that wage revision sanctioned to its employees by Respondent No.4 from 2004 is improper and as Maharashtra State Electricity Board sanctioned wage revision from 1998, the wage revision ought to have been sanctioned to its employees by Respondent No.4 from 1998. " 3. Similarly, the learned Counsel contends that following statement in paragraph 4 is also incorrect. ( 3 ) " Unless and until that decision of management is found to be arbitrary or unfair, the petitioners cannot claim gratuity by straightway treating that wage revision has become applicable from 1998. " 4. He invites attention to resolution at page 28 of the Writ Petition, to urge that as per resolution of Board of Directors passed against Demand No.1, the Board has decided that the wage revision sanctioned by the State Electricity Board from 1-4-1998 has been made applicable to employees of respondent no.4 / Society from 1-11-2004. According to the learned Counsel, there is evidence on record which shows that as per resolution passed, benefit was also to be given to the employees of respondent no.4 from 1-4-1998. He further points out that by the said resolution, continuity from 1-4-1998 to 1-11-2004 is given and hence because of continuity, gratuity also automatically becomes payable. He lastly points out that as per newspaper report, the establishment of respondent no.4 is also closed and it is taken over by the State Electricity Board. He, therefore, seeks leave to join State Electricity Board as party respondent. 5. The court has, after hearing respective Counsel, found ( 4 ) the contentions raised in the petition misconceived and thereafter, the petition has been rejected with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps in view of the alleged arguments then noted about discrimination. This Court has concurred with view of appellate authority. Portion from paragraph 1 of earlier order reproduced above is in consonance with stand of petitioner before appellate authority. Portion reproduced from paragraph 4 is the finding of this Court. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicants has also stated that predecessor of this Court has after hearing petitioners, directed respondent no.4 to file affidavit to indicate that no gratuity in terms of resolution dated 1-11-2004 has been paid to any employee of respondent no.4 who have retired prior to 1-4-2004. I find that petitioners also have not filed any such affidavit till this date. 7. The arguments have been correctly noted by this Court and the controversy has been correctly evaluated. Grounds for review are misconceived. 8. This court is now considering the controversy again in review jurisdiction. I find that no case is made out warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. ( 5 ) 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicants, requests that the applicants / petitioners were permitted to approach Industrial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. That time should be extended by further period of four weeks. The request is being opposed by Mr. Anjanwadikar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4. 10. In the orders dated 7-1-2011, this Court has directed the respondent no.4 to re-deposit the amount as per directions in the interim order, if the petitioners succeed in getting interim orders from the competent authority. The arrangement, therefore, continues and no separate orders are required. 11. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed. Needless to mention, that the liberty given to the petitioners earlier is still open. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ra21