(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.15487/2009) (In Writ Petition No. 5243 of 1997) The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri Jagannath Bhishma Ahire, Indian Inhabitant, at Post Bharatsing Nagar, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 2. Shri B.R. Girase, Indian Inhabitant, At Post Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 3. The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule. 4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 5. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. .. Non-applicants. ....................... Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant nos.1 and 2. (2) Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for non-applicant no.3. .......................... W I T H Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.13272/2009) (In Writ Petition No. 5243 of 1997) The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri Jaganath Bhishma Ahire, Indian Inhabitant, At Post : Bharatsingh Nagar, Taluka : Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 2. Shri B.R. Girase, Indian Inhabitant, At Post : Bharatsingh Nagar, Taluka : Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 4. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. 5. The Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Non-applicants. ......................... (3) Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.5. ......................... W I T H Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.15481/2009) (In Writ Petition No. 5244 of 1997) The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri Subhash Shamrao Patil, Indian Inhabitant, at Post Ghodgaon, Taluka : Chopra, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 4. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. .. Non-applicants. ........................ (4) Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for non-applicant no.2. ........................ W I T H Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.13274/2009) (In Writ Petition No. 5244 of 1997) The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule, District : Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri Subhash Shamrao Patil, Indian Inhabitant, At Post Ghodgaon, Taluka : Chopra, District : Jalgaon. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 3. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. 4. The Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Non-applicants. (5) ........................ Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.4. ......................... W I T H Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.15483/2009) (In Writ Petition No. 5245 of 1997) The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri Vasant Badiram Patil, Indian Inhabitant, as Post Sharwad, Taluka : Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 2. The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 4. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. .. Non-applicants. .......................... (6) Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for non-applicant no.2. ........................ W I T H Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.13277/2009 ) (In Writ Petition No. 5245 of 1997) The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri Vasant Badiram Patil, Age : Major, Occ. : - , At Post : Sharwad, Taluka : Dhule, District : Dhule. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 3. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. 4. The Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Respondents. (7) ............................... Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.4. ............................ W I T H Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.15490/2009 ) (In Writ Petition No. 5246 of 1997) The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri G.B. Pardeshi, Indian Inhabitant, at Babulwadi Talao, District : Dhule. 2. The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 4. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. .. Non-applicants. ........................... (8) Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for non-applicant no.2. ............................ W I T H Review Application No. ............... of 2009 (Stamp No.13290/2009 ) (In Writ Petition No. 5246 of 1997) The Zilla Parishad, Dhule, through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule, District : Dhule. .. Applicant. versus 1. Shri G.B. Pardeshi, Age : Major, Occ. : - , At Post : Babulwadi Talao, Taluka : Dhule, District : Dhule. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhule. 3. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Bhikchand Jain Market, Jalgaon. 4. The Collector, Dhule, District : Dhule. .. Non-applicants. (9) ....................... Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.4. ......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Review applications taken on board. Office to register them as Review Applications. 2. Heard Mr. R.P. Phatke, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the applicant State, and Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned Counsel for the applicant, Zilla Parishad. 3. The applicants are seeking review of the order passed by this court dated 12th November 2008. Vide the said order, this court had allowed the petitions by directing the respondents (review petitioners) to reinstate the petitioners in terms of the orders passed by the Labour Court dated 27th September 1991, within a period of three months from the date of the order i.e. 12th November 2008, with continuity in service. It was further clarified that the writ petitioners would not be entitled to (10) any back wages except the one which were awarded to them under the orders of the Labour Court vide order dated 20th March 1998. 4. Mr. R.P. Phatke, learned Additional Government Pleader, and Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned Counsel, appearing for the applicants, submit that the respondent (writ petitioners) were working on the establishment of the Zilla Parishad under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. It is submitted on behalf of Zilla Parishad, that the employment guarantee scheme is now transferred to the Collector and, therefore, the Zilla Parishad cannot be issued a direction which has been issued by the order under review. 5. Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, Zilla Parishad, further submits that two learned Single Judges of this court have taken a view that the Employment Guarantee Scheme is not an industry and, therefore, the complaint was not tenable before the Labour Court. 6. The petitions have been allowed by this court basically on the ground that the cases of the present petitioners was identical with the cases of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5041/1994, 5045/1994 and 869/1995, and that the said petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court at the principal seat by judgment and order dated 6th October 1995. 7. This court has specifically observed that the writ petitioners cannot be denied same benefit which has been given to the other similarly situated employees vide order passed by the learned Single (11) Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. This court, therefore, directing relief of reinstatement, which was granted in the petitions decided at Bombay, has restricted the claim of the writ petitioners regarding back wages only to the one which was awarded by the order passed by the Labour Court dated 20th March 1998 8. In that view of the matter, no error, apparent on the face of record, could be found so as to invoke review jurisdiction. 9. The Review Applications are, therefore, rejected. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/rast15487etc