The State Of Mah And Another vs Bharati Vitthalrao Raut
2021 Latest Caselaw 17248 Bom

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6772 OF 2015
                                   IN
           REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.16030 OF 2015
    (The State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Bharati Vitthalrao Raut)

                                      .....
Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi, A.G.P. for the applicants/State
Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the respondent
                                      .....

                                   CORAM :     MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                   DATE   :    10.12.2021


PER COURT :

After hearing both the sides for a while, it appears that this is

a matter wherein the State and the Director of Vocational Education and

Training are seeking a review of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2014

passed in Writ Petition No.9993/2012. In the connected matters in respect

of some other employees, in writ petition No.10106/2014, another

coordinate bench of this court, by the judgment and order dated

24.11.2014, in paragraph No.10, has referred to certain circumstances

which were relevant but were not brought to the notice of this court while

deciding the writ petition by the judgment dated 22.07.2014. Based on

such observations of the coordinate bench in the latter pronouncement, the

State is now seeking to prefer a review coupled with an application for

condonation of delay in preferring the review application.

2 CA6772-2015.odt

2. Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, learned Advocate for the respondent/

employee tenders across the bar a judgement and order passed by the

Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.16/20212, dated 20.06.2015. He

submits that by the order passed in writ petition no.10106/2014, which is

now being relied upon by the State for seeking a review, the complaints

were remanded to the Industrial Court for decision afresh by framing

issues. He submits that after such remand, the Industrial Court has

allowed the complaint and has issued certain directions, which should now

govern even the respondent in the present matter. He would further

submit that though the Industrial Court subsequently decided the

complaint in the year 2015, it has not been challenged and the State has

suffered the order. Therefore, there is no propriety in now re-considering

the matter by condoning the delay.

3. The learned A.G.P. shall take appropriate instructions. At his

request, the matter is adjourned to 06.01.2022.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE

npj/CA6772-2015.odt