M/S Batliwala And Karani vs Shitla Prasad Shukla & Ors.

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4500 Del
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2011

Delhi High Court
M/S Batliwala And Karani vs Shitla Prasad Shukla & Ors. on 14 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
6&8$~
  *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     Review Petition No.215/2011 & CM No.5174/2011 (for stay) in
      W.P.(C) 18211/2006
      M/S BATLIWALA & KARANI                     ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Adv.
                                   Versus
      LALIT MOHAN JAIN & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                   Through: None.
                                    AND
+     Review Petition No.216/2011 & CM No.5176/2011 (for stay) in
      W.P.(C) 18288/2006

      M/S BATLIWALA AND KARANI                   ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Adv.
                                   Versus
      SHITLA PRASAD SHUKLA & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                   Through: None.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                         ORDER

% 14.09.2011

1. Review is sought of the judgment dated 11.03.2011 insofar as the same in para 11 thereof records that on applications of the workmen for computation of the amount due, the Labour Court found certain amounts to be due to the workmen.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner / review applicant is 1/2 that the applications filed by the respondent workmen under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were in fact dismissed on 02.04.2008 and the same were wrongfully revived by the Labour Court on application of the workmen without issuing notice to the petitioner and amounts found due and stay of recovery whereof was sought from this Court on 26.04.2010. It is further the contention of the counsel for the petitioner / review applicant that the observations of this Court in para 11 to the effect that the applications were allowed by the Labour Court are coming in the way of the petitioner / review applicant seeking remedies against the illegal revival of the Section 33C(2) proceedings.

3. This Court has in para 11 of the judgment dated 11.03.2011 merely recorded the factum of the stay having been sought by the petitioner from this Court on 26.04.2010; else, it has been amply recorded in the order that the present writ petition was not concerned with the validity of the orders if any in the Section 33C(2) proceedings.

4. In the circumstances, no ground for review is made out. Review petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2011/'gsr' 2/2