1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11351 OF 2009 IN REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 7175 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 9 th February, 2010. 1 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 138 days occurred in presenting the review application. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 138 days occurred in presenting the review application stands condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb / office /ca11351.09.odt 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 7175 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3136 OF 2005 Sunil s/o Balappa Gadhari .. APPLICANT VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Dhule .. RESPONDENT Mr. M.H. Patil, Advocate for the review applicant. Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 9 th February, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an application seeking review of the order passed by this court on 16-10-2007 whereby the writ petition presented by the review applicant came to be rejected summarily. 2 It is contended by the applicant that infact there were two matters placed before this court for admission hearing raising identical issues. Those were Writ Petition no. 3148/2005 presented by one Prakash jade and another petition bearing no. 3136/2005 presented by the petitioner / applicant 3 herein. While considering the petition presented by Prakash (W.P. No. 3148/2005) statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in employment and, as such, after recording such a statement, the petition was taken up for consideration by granting rule. However, so far as petition presented by the review applicant is concerned (W.P. No. 3136/2005), learned counsel for the respondent / Municipal Corporation made a statement that the review applicant is not in employment and he may have to avail the remedy available under the industrial law for raising challenge tot he order of termination of services. Considering this statement made by learned counsel for the respondent / Municipal Corporation, the writ petition came to be rejected. 3 By presenting the instant review application, it is pointed out that the statement made on earlier occasion by learned counsel for the respondent / Municipal Corporation was factually incorrect, and, on the date of consideration of the petition for admission, the review applicant was very well in employment of the respondent / Municipal Corporation. Thus, there arises no question of pursuing any alternate remedy under the industrial law. The petition came to be rejected as a consequence of incorrect statement by learned counsel representing the employer. 4 4 Mr. S.P. Shah, appears for respondent / Municipal Corporation Dhule and submits that the review application / petitioner is in employment and on the date of issuance of the order on 16-10-2007 also he was in employment of the Municipal Corporation. Considering this fact, it would not be permissible for the review applicant to avail any alternate remedy provided under the industrial court and the writ petition presented by the petitioner / review applicant herein is perfectly maintainable. Order in Writ Petition no. 3136/2005 was passed on 16-10-2007 because of the incorrect statement made by learned counsel for the employer inadvertently. Considering disclosure of facts, the instant review application needs to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Order passed by this court on 16-10-2007 in Writ Petition no. 3136/2005 is recalled and the petition shall be deemed to have been admitted. Hence, issue rule in Writ Petition no. 3136/2005. Learned counsel for the respondent waives notice of rule. Review application stands allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/ca11351.09.odt 5