1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 206/2008 (The Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Grower's Marketting Federation Ltd. Versus Ku.Disha Purushottam Kale) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. C.V. Kale, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Padhye, counsel for the non-applicant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2008. Heard. By this application, the applicant seeks review of the order passed by this Court on 16.01.2008. By the order dated 16.01.2008, this Court had directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of wages to the respondent/ non-applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and further to pay the last drawn wages to the non-applicant/ respondent regularly every month during the pendency of the petition. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner/applicant that the order dated 16.01.2008 was passed on an application which was filed on 07.12.2005. It is further submitted 2 on behalf of the applicant that though it was stated in the application dated 07.12.2005 that the respondent no.2/present non-applicant was not employed elsewhere and was out of employment for a period of two years and was not receiving any other income, the aforesaid statement pertains to the period till 07.12.2005 and there was nothing before the Court on 16.01.2008 to show that the respondent was not employed elsewhere or was out of service. I have perused the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act which was filed by respondent on 07.12.2005. A categorical statement was made in the aforesaid application to the effect that the respondent was not employed elsewhere and was out of employment since two years and was not receiving any other income. Though the petitioner has filed a copy of the reply to the civil application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act to this miscellaneous civil application, it is conspicuous to note that the reply was not actually filed in the Office. It appears that the petitioner/applicant had prepared the reply but, had failed to file the same in the Registry. Hence, when the order, which is sought to be reviewed,was passed on 16.01.2008, 3 there was no reply to the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act on record. The submission made on behalf of the applicant that the statement about the unemployment of the respondent does not relate to the date of order i.e. 16.01.2008 is, no doubt, true but, it is clear from the record that though the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed by the respondent on 07.12.2005, the same could not be disposed of in view of the fact that the petitioner had sought time to file reply to the said civil application. The civil application was, therefore, pending before the Court for more than two years. Though the civil application dated 07.12.2005 was decided after a lapse of about 2 ½ years, it is not the case of the petitioner/applicant that the respondent was employed elsewhere or was receiving any income from some other source. Moreover, the affidavit is filed by the respondent to this miscellaneous civil application, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the respondent had been out of employment since the date of termination till the date of filing of the affidavit i.e. 14.03.2008 and was also not receiving any other income. 4 No ground has been made out for reviewing the order passed by this Court on 16.01.2008. The miscellaneous civil application is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE APTE