Vijay Kuamr Bajpai In Re W.P. No ... vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1206 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 23
 

 
Case :- REVIEW PETITION No. - 105 of 2004
 

 
Petitioner :- Vijay Kuamr Bajpai In Re W.P. No 6617 Of 1991 S/S
 
Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad U.P. And Another
 
Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Srivastava
 
Respondent Counsel :- S.K. Chaudhary,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

Petitioner has applied for review of the order dated 13.3.2004 by which the writ petition was finally decided.

Petitioner claims himself to be the worker who in connection with his retrenchment has approached the conciliation officer. In conciliation compromise was arrived into between the parties and the employer is said to have agreed for payment of Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner. The compromise was not given effect to. Therefore, petitioner again approached the conciliation officer whereupon the matter was referred to the Labour Court who made an award on 16.2.1991.

The aforesaid award was challenged in the present writ petition.

The petition was dismissed recording that learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded that there is no illegality in the award and that the petitioner will approach the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the compromise which was arrived into between the parties in the earlier conciliation proceedings.

Now through this review application it is being contended that the petitioner had never instructed his earlier counsel to concede on any point and therefore the judgment and order dismissing the writ petition is liable to be reviewed/recalled. 

The submission as advanced can not be accepted for the simple reason that it is for the earlier counsel to say as to what instructions were actually given to him or that he had no instruction to concede on legal point. 

The earlier counsel has not applied for review. It is also settled position in law that a review application is ordinarily supposed to be filed by the counsel who has argued the matter and not by a new counsel. New counsel is not supposed to be in a position to narrate as to what had transpired during the course of argument when the writ petition was decided. 

In view of the above, I find the review application to be completely devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 23.4.2013

SKS