[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION W.P.NO.1949 OF 2006 M/s.Trig Guardforce Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Union of India and 2 Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Raju More Adv.i/b R.S.Mishra Adv. for Petitioner Mr.Suresh Kumar Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 ... CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 1,2006 DATE : AUGUST 1,2006 DATE : AUGUST 1,2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that Review Application preferred by the petitioner raising issue of statutory maintainability, has not been disposed of. It is the contention of the petitioner that the workmen in respect of whom the demand is made, are of Trig Detectives Pvt.Ltd. and not the Trig Guardforce Ltd. which is the Petitioner. That application till date, has not been disposed of. 3. Counsel for the Respondents, in view of the fact that petition was served recently, is not in a [-2-] position to inform the Court the correct position. However, considering the limited controversy, the petition can be disposed of in the following terms: (1) If the Review Application is disposed by Respondents, the Respondents to communicate the said order to the petitioner within two weeks from today. It is needless to say that if the Review Application is not disposed, the same to be disposed of after hearing the petitioner. (2) If the Review Application is not disposed of, the same be disposed of at any rate within three weeks from today. (3) For the period of four weeks from today, no coercive action be taken pursuant to order dated 20.12.2005. 4. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of. [ F.I.REBELLO, J.] [-3-] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]