1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.45 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2103 OF 2008 Mumbai Labour Union ..Petitioner. Vs. Watumuli Sanatorium Trust and Others ..Respondents. ...... Ms. Neeta Karnik for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jayesh Desai i/b M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for Respondents 1 to 8 and 10. Mr. Shreeram Shirsat for Respondent No.9. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 10th April, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Review Petition is directed against an order passed by this Court on 31st March, 2008 in a writ petition filed by the union challenging an interim order passed by the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court declined to grant interim relief against the closure of the hospital in question viz. Radhibai 2 Watumull Global Hospital. When the Petition came up for hearing it was stated on behalf of Respondents 1 to 8, 10 and 11 who constituted 7 out of 8 trustees that the trust has proposed to relocate the hospital to alternate premises in Mumbai and that in any event by 30th June, 2001 the trustees would endeavour to commence operation of the new hospital where the employment would offered to the existing workmen with continuity of service. In view of the offer which was made on behalf of the management which was accepted before the Court by the union, it was stated before the Court that the workmen would vacate the premises of the hospital within 72 hours. On that basis the Court was informed that the complaint of unfair labour practices was not being pressed. The 9th Respondent who is the sole dissenting trustee had informed the Court that he has initiated proceedings under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. This Court clarified that those proceedings shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the appropriate authority. 2. A review has been sought of the order of the Court. Two 3 submissions have been urged at the hearing of the Review Petition. The first submission is that there is an apprehension that the trustees may not restart the hospital at an alternate location and in support thereof reliance has been placed on the statement contained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in reply to the Review Petition which is to the following effect : “The continuity of service granted by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 31.3.2008 is clearly intended to protect the workers gratuity and/or terminal dues if the Respondent Hospital is able to restart and the Petitioner members are willing to rejoin subject to conditions stated in the aforesaid Order.” In addition, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has referred to the word “endeavour” in the second paragraph of the consent order dated 31st March, 2008. In order to allay the apprehension of the Petitioner that the hospital may not be restarted, Counsel appearing for the Respondents to the Review Petition (save and except for Respondent No.9 who is a dissenting trustee) states that in a meeting held by the Board of Trustees on 25th October, 2007 a decision has been taken that the entire consideration 4 that would be received from the sale of the property at Mahim would be utilized for finding another suitable place in the Western suburbs and to construct a new hospital with modern amenities. Learned counsel states that the averment contained in paragraph 6 of the reply which has been filed to the review petition is not intended to and shall not detract from the obligation imposed upon the management by the order of the Court dated 31st March, 2008 and that as a matter of fact a decision has been taken by the trustees to restart the hospital at an alternate location in terms of the agreed order. The second submission which has been urged before the Court is that in the meantime until the hospital is restarted, the salary of the workmen should be directed to be paid during the period of 18 months that may be taken to restart the hospital. Such a direction cannot be granted in a review petition for more than one reason. The order of the Court dated 31st March, 2008 was passed by consent of parties. Before the Court a statement was made on behalf of the review petitioner that Shri Shankar Salvi the General Secretary of the union was present before the Court when the order was passed. In 5 the affidavit in reply to the Review Petition it has also been stated that besides the General Secretary other members of the union were present in the Court. There is no rejoinder before the Court controverting the correctness of the statement which has been made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in reply. An order which has been passed by consent cannot be the subject matter of a Review Petition. The material before the Court indicates that the learned counsel who submitted to an agreed order was duly instructed to do so by an authorized representative of the union who was present before the Court. On behalf of the 9th Respondent who was the dissenting trustee, it has been stated that there are three doctors in the hospital who have independently instituted a writ petition being Writ Petition 433 of 2008 which is pending. On the request of counsel appearing for the 9th Respondent it is clarified that nothing contained in this order shall affect the rights and contentions of the Petitioners before the Court in Writ Petition 433 of 2008. No case for the exercise of the jurisdiction in review for recalling the order passed by the Court on 31st March, 2008 has been made out. The Petition stands dismissed. 6 *****