1 Rev.P.96/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW PETITION NO.96 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3614 OF 1994. The Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. ...Rev.Petitioner. Versus Kondiba Baba Mehatre, Age major, R/o Adhalgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the Rev.Petitioner. Mr.S.K.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2 Rev.P.96/11 2. The present Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : R.K.Deshpande,J.) in W.P.No.3614/1994 dated 6.8.2010. 3. The present Respondent had filed complaint (ULP) No.5/1990 before the Labour Court for reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The Labour Court allowed the said complaint and directed the present petitioner to reinstate the Respondent with continuity in service but without back wages. The said judgment was challenged by the present petitioner and the Respondent by filing a separate revisions before the Industrial Court. The Revision filed by the present petitioner was dismissed and Revision filed by the present Respondent was partly allowed i.e. awarding 75% of back wages. The said order was assailed in the Writ Petition No.3614/1994 by the petitioner. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 6.8.1994, dismissed the said Writ Petition. Thereafter, the present Review Petition is filed. 3 Rev.P.96/11 4. Mr.S.T.Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court being a Court of record has plenary power to review its judgment if it is satisfied that there is either misconception of law or fact. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in a case of "M.M.Thomas Vs. State of Kerala" reported in 2000(1) SCC 666, "Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs." reported in 2009 (6) Supreme 23. 5. The learned counsel submits that while dismissing the Writ Petition, it has not been taken into consideration that the Respondent had worked only for one year and reinstatement could not have been awarded, instead at the most if the Court found that the illegality is committed while terminating the service, compensation could have been awarded. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Talwara Cooperative Credit Service Society Ltd.Vs. Sushil Kumar" reported in AIR 2008 SCW 6532. The learned counsel further contends that 4 Rev.P.96/11 even notice of termination is not necessary to be issued in case of a workman as that of Respondent. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Madhyamik Siksha Prrishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and others" reported in 1994 Lab. I.C. 1197 and a case of "U.P.State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Vs. Tazmulk Ansari and others" reported in 1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 745. So also the judgment in a case of "State of Rajasthan and other Vs. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot" reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1001 and the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty" reported (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 126, to contend that the recent trend of the Apex Court in case of such daily wager is not to grant reinstatement. 6. The learned counsel contends that the judgment of which the review is sought does not show that all these aspects were considered and as such Review of the said judgment is necessary. 5 Rev.P.96/11 7. This Court while entertaining a Review Petition can not sit as an appellate authority over the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The jurisdiction of the Court while entertaining Review U/s 114 read with order 47 of the C.P.C. is in a narrow compass. Perusal of the judgment shows that the Court after considering various judgments of the Apex Court has confirmed the judgment passed by the Industrial Court. In para 9 of the said order, the learned Single Judge has considered about the non-compliance of the provisions while terminating the service. So also has given a detail reasoning while awarding back wages. The Review Petition can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view would be possible. 8. In view of the above, the Review Petition is not entertained and the same is rejected. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) 6 Rev.P.96/11 asp/office/Rev9611