:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 30 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8099 OF 2007 M/s. Arian Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Wyeth Employees Union and ors. ..Respondents WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 31 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8099 OF 2007 M/s. Wyeth Limited ..Petitioner Vs. Wyeth Employees Union and ors. ..Respondents Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. V.P. Sawant and Mr. N.R. Patankar for petitioner in both the Review Petitions. Mr. Sanjay Singhavi with Mr. Bennet D’Costa for respondent-Union in both the Review Petitions. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. Dated: August 30, 2008. Dated: August 30, 2008. Dated: August 30, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. C.U. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. V.P. Sawant for the review petitioners-companies. Mr. Sanjay Singhavi the :2: learned counsel appears with Mr. D’Costa for the respondent-Union. 2. The respondent-Union had filed Writ Petition No. 8099 of 2007 and had came to be disposed off by me on 9/1/2008 with liberty to the Union to file a fresh complaint, if so advised and if the complaint was filed within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order, the Industrial Court would consider the pending proceedings, including the writ petition for condonation of delay. Mr. Singhavi the learned counsel for the Union states that fresh complaint has been filed before the Industrial Court but no further steps have been taken for its trial. 3. The present petitioners have been impleaded as respondent nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 8099 of 2007 i.e. M/s.Arian Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Wyeth Limited respectively. As per Mr. C.U. Singh the original employer is M/s. Wyeth Limited and the establishment was taken over by M/s. Arian Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. on 30/8/2004, whereas Complaint (ULP) No. 534 of 2004 was filed sometimes in September, 2004 :3: i.e. after its take over/merger. He further submitted that on or after 20/4/2005 M/s. Arian Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. had announced a voluntary retirement scheme and all the workmen opted for voluntary retirement and accordingly they were paid all their dues and relived from service. 4. As per Mr. C.U. Singh, in these obtaining circumstances, it was necessary to hear both the companies in Writ Petition No. 8099 of 2007 before it was disposed off granting liberty to the Union to file a fresh complaint. As per Mr.C.U. Singh such a complaint cannot be filed. 5. I need not go into the rival contentions on the maintainability of the fresh complaint. Mr.Singhavi has consented for Writ Petition No. 8099 of 2007 to be restored so that both the review petitioners are granted an opportunity of being heard and the said petition is considered afresh. 6. Hence, the order date 9/1/2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 8099 of 2007 is hereby recalled and the :4: Registry is directed to place the said petition for admission before the appropriate Single Bench as and when circulated. Liberty to mention before the appropriate Single Bench on 1/9/2008. 7. Review Petitions are allowed accordingly. Further trial of the pending complaint, filed afresh, shall be subject to the order to be passed in Writ Petition No. 8099 of 2007. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)