1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.A. No. 36 OF 2009 Mah. St. Co-op. Cotton Growers Mktg. Fedn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Phadnis Advocate for the Applicant. .... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 09 th JANUARY, 2009. This application has been filed for speaking to minutes to the order dated 4.12.2008 passed on C.A. No. 8931/08 in W.P. No. 2681/08. The ground that is canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the counsel Shri K.K. Nalamwar had filed the said civil application under his signature so also the Vakalatnama, but his name did not appear in the cause list and, therefore, he could not appear before the 2 Court when C.A. NO. 8931/08 was called out for hearing. In support of this submission, he has filed xerox copy of the cause list of Bar Association. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the cause list, I find that the contention seems to be correct. Hence, it cannot be said that the counsel for the applicant was deliberately absent when C.A. No. 8931/08 was called out, but he was absent as his name was not notified. Under these circumstances, the order of costs of Rs.2,000/- passed on C.A. No. 8931/08 will have to be recalled, since the counsel is not at fault. Hence, the order directing the applicant to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- is recalled. C.A. No. 8931/08 This is an application for review. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that since this Court dismissed the writ petition 3 accepting the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the concerned employee is taking undue advantage thereof, namely of dismissal of petition and has filed complaint for reinstatement. I do not think that the applicant is entitled to make review application for this purpose, as the applicant is entitled to canvass such ground in opposition to the claim for reinstatement before appropriate court. The application is not maintainable. Hence, the application is dismissed. JUDGE /TA/