HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.392 of 2010 (M/S) Shri Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Hari Shankar Gaur … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated:- 27th March, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri P. S. Pawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Dalakoti, Advocate holding brief of Sri D. S. Patni, the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner assailed the validity and legality of his dispensation of service by raising an industrial dispute, in which, the labour court declined to give any relief in its award dated 28th May, 2002. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred writ petition No.552 of 2002 (M/S), which was dismissed by an order dated 02nd August, 2005. Consequently, the award of the labour court has become final. It transpires that the petitioner moved some application under the Right to Information Act and, based on certain information that was given to him, he filed a review application before the writ court, which was also dismissed by an order dated 27th June, 2006. The writ court, while rejecting the review application, however, observed that if the petitioner was entitled to move a review application under law before the labour court, then such an application may be filed by the workman. It seems that based on the said order, the petitioner moved a review application before the labour court, which was rejected by an order dated 29th January, 2010. The petitioner has now preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29.01.2010 as well as the earlier award dated 28th May, 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the information given under the Right to Information Act, namely, the muster-roll register, it was clear that the petitioner had worked more than 240 days and, that since the retrenchment compensation had not been paid, the dispensation of services of the petitioner was wholly illegal and therefore, the award of the labour court was liable to be set aside. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be attractive in the first flush, but, the Court is constrained to observe with all its humility that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In the first instance, this writ petition is not maintainable since it questions the validity of the award for which the present writ petition is the second writ petition. Since the earlier writ petition has been dismissed and the review application has also been dismissed, the said award cannot be questioned again in a writ jurisdiction. Further, the review application filed before the labour court was not maintainable in as much as once the award has been affirmed by the writ court in an earlier round of litigation, a review application to review the said award before the labour court cannot be filed. Assuming without admitting that a review application could be filed to review the order, the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal & others AIR 1981 SC 606 has held that the application, if any, could only be moved within 30 days from the date of the award, failing which the award of the labour court become functus officio and no application could be entertained. Consequently, on that ground the review application before the labour court was not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 27.03.2010 LSR