:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1670 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1670 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1670 OF 2008 M/s. Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Company Limited ..Petitioner versus Khatau Mills Kamgar Committee & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. K. Talsania with Mr. R. N. Shah i/b. Mr. Piyush Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. N. M.Ganguli for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. P. M. Mokashi for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. T. R. Yadav for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Specified Authority under Section 25-O(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The only contention of the learned counsel for :2: the petitioner is that the Specified Authority, having rejected the application for review, had no power to refer the matter under Section 25-O(5) to the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, for decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cable Corporation Cable Corporation Cable Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of of India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of of India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Labour & Ors. [2008 II CLR 545] Labour & Ors. [2008 II CLR 545] Labour & Ors. [2008 II CLR 545] and a decision of Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. Writ Petition No. Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2007 [Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs. 1332 of 2007 [Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs. 1332 of 2007 [Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs. Paints Employees Union] decided on 28.7.2008 Paints Employees Union] decided on 28.7.2008 Paints Employees Union] decided on 28.7.2008. 3. Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however submitted that paragraph 5 does not contain any decision rejecting the application for review but only consists of the submission on behalf of the petitioner. The contention on behalf of the respondent No.1 is not correct. In paragraph 5 the Specified Authority has clearly observed that the Applicant Union has not made out any case for review of the order. Further that in the present review application no ground is set out to prove an error apparent on the face of the order. Eventually, the Specified Authority has observed that the application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. In this view of the :3: matter, there is a clear rejection of the application for review. After rejecting the review, the Authority was not competent to refer the matter in accordance with law. 4. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)