1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O.NO. 778/2010 AND M.C.A.ST.NO.6500/2010 (REVIEW) IN W.P.NO. 2187/1997. Bhandara Zilla General Workers Union -: VERSUS :- Municipal Council, Gondia and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri Sudhir Moharir, learned Counsel for applicant and Shri Anoop Parihar, learned Counsel for respondents. Civil Application (O) is by Union seeking condonation of delay of 272 days in filing Application for review. It appears that its members for whose benefit the review is sought, are working since last about 25 years and the employer is avoiding to take appropriate steps to procure sanction for the workload available with it. Shri Moharir, learned Counsel for applicant contends that the said workload is continuously available and only because of lethargy of the employer, the review is required to be filed. 2 Shri Parihar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Municipal Council is opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. He states that the orders of this Court sought to be reviewed are very clear and Municipal Council has not breached it in any way. As I do not find any malafide in the matter, delay is condoned. C.A.O. is accordingly allowed. The parties are heard on merits of the matter. Shri Moharir, learned Counsel for applicant Union in review has pointed out that the Industrial Court vide operative part [1] of its judgment directed employer Municipal Council to take steps for securing necessary approval from the government for creating post of Class-III and Class-IV category immediately. According to him, setting aside of said direction by this Court is unwarranted. In view of the findings recorded in paragraph no.9 of judgment, the learned Counsel states that this Court has already found that the grievance of Municipal Council that the workload was not available or then recruitment was in excess, is without any merit. This Court has also found that the employees were not clinging to the post because of interim protection granted. According to him, thus in any case the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported at AIR 2006 SC 1806 (Secretary, State 3 of Karnataka .vrs. Umadevi) were satisfied and hence the deletion of that direction issued by the Industrial Court is not necessary. Shri Parihar, learned Counsel for respondents has pointed out that most of the so called members of the applicant/Union have already superannuated. He further states that because of various objections, the State Government has reduced the administrative expenditure of the Municipal Council to 50% and accordingly it's sanctioned further strength is also reduced. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the review application. It is apparent that in this case there is an order of the Industrial Court which has been maintained partly by this Court. The applicant Union has to take appropriate steps to seek implementation of that order. Creation of post is an administrative decision and the review is not the solution. I do not find anything wrong with the judgment of this Court, in so far as it has directed setting aside of operative part [1] of the order of the Industrial Court. With liberty to applicant/Union to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, the present Application for review is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.