IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. REVIEW PETITION NO.47 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION NO.47 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION NO.47 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2007 Indian Hotels Co.Ltd, .. Review Petitioner Vs 1.Shramik General Kamgar Union and ors. .. Respondents. Mr C.U.Singh, senior counsel,i/b Mull & Mulla & CBC for the petitioner. Mr Rahul Nerlekar, for respondent no.1. Mr F.Dubhash i/b Harish Joshi & Co for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 24.04.2008 DATE : 24.04.2008 DATE : 24.04.2008 PC: 1. This Review Petition is filed by the original petitioner against an order dated 11.7.2007, by which writ petition no.562 of 2006 came to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited my attention to the following sentences in paragraph 7 of the order dated 11.7.2007, which read thus: 1. "Insofar as functional integrality is concerned, Mr Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that there is functional integrality between respondent no.2-company and the petitioner." 2. "In the present case admittedly there is a functional integrality amongst the respondents interse and admittedly, the workmen are employees of respondent no.2-company and the relationship between respondent no.2 and the workmen has not been denied." Learned counsel for the parties have jointly suggested to modify both the sentences in paragraph 7 of the order dated 11.7.2007 in following terms: 1. "Insofar as functional integrality is concerned, there is an issue of functional integrality between respondent no.2-company and the petitioner". 2. "In the present case there is an issue of integrality amongst the respondent interse and admittedly the workmen are employees of respondent no.2-company and the relationship between respondent no.2 and the workmen has not been denied." 2. My attention was then invited to one more sentence in paragraph 5 of the said order and they submitted, the first reference to respondent no.2 in the following sentence be read as respondent no.1. The relevant sentence in paragraph 5 reads thus: "Such fluctuating stand of the petitioner supports the contention of respondent no.1 that there is functional integrality between respondent no.2 and the petitioner-company." 3. Since both the learned counsel have jointly prayed for the aforesaid modifications, the order dated 11.7.2007 is modified in the terms, as suggested by the learned counsel. With these modifications, the review petition is disposed of. Certified copy expedited. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)