ra248.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.248 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.247 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1921 OF 2005 Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad 431 136, Through its Manager Personnel - Legal Shri. Dilip H. Suryavanshi ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Rajendra Kumar Jagannath Kathar, Age-29 yeas, Occu: Nil, R/o-Sagar Medical Stores Lane, Survey No.25, New Baijipura, Indiranagar, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.V. Ghuge Advocate for Applicant. Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for Respondent. ... ra248.11 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL ORDER [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.] : 1. Heard. 2. The Application is filed for review of the common Judgment dated 15th November, 2011 delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No.247 of 2011. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant took this Court through the provisions of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that the powers of review of the High Court are independent of the provisions of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this point, the learned Counsel cited one case reported ra248.11 3 as (2004) 4 S.C.C. Page 122 (Green View Tea & Industries vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and another). This Court has gone through the facts of the case and observations made by the Apex Court. There is no dispute about the power of the High Court of review of its own decision. 4. During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for the Applicant took this Court through the Judgment delivered by the Industrial Court and through the Judgment delivered by this Court. It was submitted that even when the Industrial Court has not discussed the evidence in detail, this Court has discussed the evidence and this Court has drawn some inferences on the basis of such evidence. It was submitted that some inferences are in conflict with the facts and the record. It was submitted that the evidence given by the complainant is not discussed by this Court. It was submitted that the major portion of evidence of witness Shri. Suryawanshi, examined by ra248.11 4 the employer, is not discussed. It was submitted that the decision delivered in Bhojane's case cannot be used for deciding the present matter. The learned Counsel specifically referred to some of the grounds of review. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgments reported in (2004) 3 S.C.C. Page 682 (Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash) and (2003) 6 S.C.C. Page 675 (Surya Dev Raj vs. Ram Chander Rai and others). We have perused the same. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in this proceedings the Applicant is virtually asking this Court to re-appreciate the facts and evidence and if the submissions made for the Applicant are considered in detail, that will amount to deciding the Appeal afresh which is filed in disguise of Review Application. ra248.11 5 7. The submissions made in this proceedings show that an attempt is made to point out that wrong inferences, contrary to the inferences drawn by the Tribunal, are drawn by this Court and that way error is committed by this Court. It is submitted that an error is committed by this Court by considering the previous decision given in a matter between the employer and employees of the same factory and appreciating the evidence which is not discussed by the Industrial Court. 8. We have perused the grounds of review as referred by the learned Senior Counsel, the other relevant material placed on record and we have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that entertaining the present Review Petition would result in re-appreciating the facts and evidence as an Appellate Court. To deal with the grounds of review on its own merits would require detail ra248.11 6 discussion, analysis and fresh appreciation of the record which was subject matter of our consideration while the Judgment under review was delivered. The grounds of review do not convince us to hold that there is error apparent on the face of record. We do not find any sufficient reason to entertain the Review Petition. It is settled position in law that a decision or Judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that the different view could have been taken by the Court. The Review Petition is accordingly rejected. [T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC11