bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5811 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5811 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5811 OF 2008 Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Prakash Vasant Kalantre & ors. ... Respondents Mr.D.J.Bhanage for the petitioner. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 7TH AUGUST, 2008 7TH AUGUST, 2008 7TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed against an order passed by the Labour Court on 17.11.2000. Shri Mahavir Co-operative Bank Ltd., against whom the applications under Sections 33(C)(2) were filed, had challenged the same order by preferring Writ Petition No.7216 of 2000. That petition was dismissed on 22.2.2001 by Khanwilkar, J. in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. L.P.A. No.160 of 2000 was preferred by Shri Mahavir Co-operative Ltd. By an order dated 22.10.2001, the Division Bench of this Court refused to entertain the L.P.A.No.160 of 2000 against the decision of the learned Single Judge as it was not maintainable. The advocate for the Bank raised an issue in respect of 11 2 employees who were applicants before the Labour Court, that they were not workmen. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge had not made any observations regarding the claims of these 11 workmen, who according to the Bank were not "workmen". The Division Bench, therefore, observed thus:- "It does not appear from the judgment of the learned Judge that this point was urged before him, nor is there any averment in the memo of appeal that such a point was urged before the learned Judge, but he has failed to notice and decide the same. We are not inclined to made any observation, but if the petitioner is so advised, it may move the learned Judge bring to his notice the fact the point urged by it has gone unnoticed in the judgment of the learned Judge." This order of the Division Bench has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The S.L.P. filed by Shri Mahavir Co-op. Bank Ltd. was finally decided on 1.5.2008 and the same was dismissed. 2. It appears that Shri Mahavir Co-op. Bank Ltd. was taken over by the petitioner bank in July, 2006. Therefore, the name of the petitioner Bank was substituted in place of Shri Mahavir Co-op. Bank Ltd. in the S.L.P. 3. The petition has now been filed contending that the case of 11 employees should be reconsidered and the 3 judgment of the Labour Court dated 17.11.2000 should be modified to that extent. Reliance is placed on the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the L.P.A. which permit the petitioner to "move the learned Judge to bring to his notice the points urged by it has gone unnoticed in the judgment of the learned Judge". Thus, in effect, the petitioner is seeking a review of the order of Khanwilkar, J. This cannot be done in the present petition and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. 4. Mr.Bhanage for the petitioner states that the money which has been deposited pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court will be disbursed to the workmen tomorrow and, therefore, he urges that money be retained at least for a period of two weeks to enable him to proceed further in the matter. 5. The Assistant Commissioenr of Labour, Kolhapur, shall not disburse the money to the eleven employees i.e. respondent Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22 and 27 for a period of two weeks.