1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.1443/2008 Pandurang Govindrao Wankhede ...Versus... Hon'ble Judge, 4 th Labour Court, Nagpur and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Petitioner in person] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 08.12.2008 This is a review petition filed by the review petitioner in person against the judgment of this Court dated 27.8.2008 in Writ Petition No.2620/2007. The Labour Court in the proceedings before it after giving opportunity to both sides came to a conclusion that the petitioner in person had in fact since attained the age of superannuation entered into settlement with his employer and by way of compensation, he was paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- on 15.3.2003 i.e. immediately on the next day of the settlement. It is not in dispute that the review petitioner in fact received the said amount of Rs.70,000/- in lieu of his resignation from service or 2 severance of master and servant relationship. Having done so, he took somersault and filed the proceedings before the Labour Court, saying that he was illegally terminated from service and had not even attained the age of superannuation. The Labour Court recorded his evidence and recorded a finding of fact that that was not true and as a matter of fact immediately on the next day he accepted amount of Rs.70,000/- and had in fact attained the age of superannuation. When the writ petition was finally heard, I heard the petitioner in person, who made several irrelevant submissions, but then he being in person, I heard him at length and also personally went through the entire record and I remember that after the judgment was over since he was agitating, I told him to file intra court appeal against my judgment. But he has chosen to file this review petition again saying that there was an order made by the Hon'ble Shri Justice R.V. More for his reinstatement. But the record does not show anywhere what the petitioner in person is saying before me. He is again pointing out some averments of the employer that were made before Labour Court which are wholly irrelevant. I have already recorded a finding in paragraph No.3 of my judgment that after acceptance of amount of Rs.70,000/- 3 towards full and final settlement and then saying that it was for satisfying his family's hunger was wholly unbelievable. In fact, in my opinion, the petitioner in person has been dishonest in first accepting the entire amount of Rs.70,000/- and then taking proceedings against the employer with a view to extract money from the employer. The petitioner's attempt to multiply the proceedings in this Court is wholly unjustified and in normal course, this Court would have imposed costs, but then this Court cannot forget that the petitioner is an old person with no good financial status. Hence, on merits, I find no substance in this review petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner in person if aggrieved should file intra court appeal in this Court. JUDGE ssw