1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5494 OF 2006 (APMC .v. Liran Ganesh Bawanthade and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Anoop Parihar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.L. Bhure, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 03RD JUNE, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The respondents filed complaint under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 before the labour Court at Bhandara which was subsequently transferred to labour Court at Gondia, challenging their termination by the petitioner. The labour dismissed the aforesaid complaint . The respondents thereafter preferred a revision being Revision No.103/2005 before the learned Industrial Court, Bhandara. During the pendency of the revision, on 10.11.2005, the parties to the revision filed compromise pursis. The compromise pursis is signed by the Vice Chairman and Secretary of the petitioner and the respondents along with their respective Counsel, namely, Advocate Turkar and Shri Bhure. In view of the 2 compromise pursis, the learned Member of the Industrial Court disposed of revision in terms of the compromise pursis. The petitioner thereafter preferred Miscellaneous Application (ULPA) No.86/2005 for review of the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court on 10.11.2005. This application came to be rejected by an order dated 13.01.2006. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.11.2005 as well as the order dated 13.01.2006 passed in review by filing the present petition. Shri Anoop Parihar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the compromise pursis was not signed by the Chairman of the APMC and it was signed only by the Secretary and Vice Chairman of the APMC. However, the petitioner could not point out that the Secretary has no power to settle the matter before the Court. In addition to this, perusal of para 4 of the impugned order dated 13.01.2006 reveals that the learned Counsel appearing for the present petitioner was very much present when the aforesaid compromise pursis was filed before the Industrial Court. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for the respondents has annexed Exh.1 to his written 3 submission. This annexure is a communication by the Ex-Chairman to the Administrator of APMC, Gondia. In this communication, it is stated by the Ex-Chairman that he had filed the aforesaid writ petition on behalf of the AMPC. However, now there are 18 posts vacant and, therefore, no purpose would be served in continuing with the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the respondents also makes a statement that the respondents have already been reinstated in terms of compromise pursis and they are as on today working with the petitioner/APMC. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to make out any case for review of the earlier order dated 10.11.2005. No error or perversity can be said to have been committed by the Industrial Court while passing impugned order. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE *rrg.