Bombay High Court
Manisha Analytical Lab Pvt Ltd vs Narayan P Bhandari on 28 June, 2021
Bench: S.C. Gupte
4&5. rpw6&4-20innmw119-19.doc
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.6 OF 2020
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.119 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3097 OF 2018
Manisha Analytical Lab Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
vs
Narayan P. Bhandari ...Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.4 OF 2020
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.119 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3097 OF 2018
Narayan P. Bhandari ...Petitioner
Manisha Analytical Lab Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents
.....
Mr. Shafi Kazi, a/w. Mr. Benny Joseph, i/b. BJ Law Offices LLP, for the
Review Petitioner in RPW/6/2020 and for Respondent in RPW/4/2020.
Mr. Sudhir Deshpande, a/w. Ms. Swarna P. Munshi and Ms. Nivedita S.
Deshpande, for the Review Petitioner in RPW/4/2020 and for
Respondent in RPW/6/2020.
......
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATED: 28 JUNE, 2021
P.C. :
. These two are cross review petitions filed by the original
Pg 1 of 4
4&5. rpw6&4-20innmw119-19.doc
petitioner and the original respondent in Writ Petition No.3097 of 2018.
The review petition of the original petitioner, Review Petition No.6 of
2020, is on the footing that the notice of motion, in which the order
under review was passed, was directed to be heard by a learned Single
Judge of this Court along with Writ Petition No.1002 of 2019. It is the
submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of this
order, which cannot be corrected by another Single Judge, his notice of
motion could not have been disposed of without hearing Writ Petition
No.1002 of 2019 and that the order passed on notice of motion,
accordingly, deserves to be reviewed.
2. There is no merit in the contention. The order that the
motion may be heard along with Writ Petition No.1002 of 2019 is in the
nature of an interim direction passed for the purposes of convenience of
hearing. It is not an order, which could bar another Single Judge from
hearing the notice of motion. In any event, the order of the learned
Single Judge, by which the two matters to be heard together, was not
brought to the notice of the Court when the notice of motion was
originally argued before the Court. Secondly, and in any event, Writ
Petition No.1002 of 2019 was the Respondent workman's petition and
the averments made therein or grounds of challenge raised therein really
have no bearing on the issue with which the Court was concerned in the
present notice of motion. (Notice of Motion No.119 of 2019 in Writ
Petition No.3097 of 2018). The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. The companion review petition, Review Petition No.4 of
2020, has been filed by the Respondent workman. It is his case that he
Pg 2 of 4
4&5. rpw6&4-20innmw119-19.doc
had in the notice of motion prayed for wages under Section 17B from the
date of the award and, alternatively, for the period from 13/3/2018 to
27/1/2019, during which period there was no stay of the award in
operation. This alternative plea is based on a judgment delivered by a
learned Single Judge in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatic Kamgar Sangh
vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited1.
4. In the order under review passed on the Respondent
workman's notice of motion under Section17B of the Industrial Dispute
Act, this Court has awarded wages under Section 17B during the period
of pendency of the writ petition. That is in keeping with the provision of
Section 17B as it stands. In fact, there is a judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of United Motors (India) Ltd. vs. Pradeep
Raghunath Rane2, where the learned Judges held that having regard to
the scheme of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the last drawn
wages were payable to the workman only from the date when the award
of reinstatement passed in his favour was stayed by the High Court.
Though the order under review ordered wages under Section 17B from
the date of filing of the petition and not from the date when the award
was passed, that issue was not raised by the Petitioner Establishment in
its own review petition. In any event, my order was passed on the text of
Section 17B and the judgment of United Motors was not brought to my
notice and there is no warrant for considering the issue now under
review jurisdiction.
5. So far as the Review Petitioner's (Respondent workman's )
1 2010(6) Bom. C.R. 292.
2 2010 II-LLJ 579 (Bom)
Pg 3 of 4
4&5. rpw6&4-20innmw119-19.doc
reliance on the case of Kirloskar Pneumatic Kamgar Sangh is concerned,
the authority was not brought to the notice of the Court when the notice
of motion was argued. In any event, the observations made in that
judgment proceed inter alia on the basis of the facts of that case where
the challenge to an order of reinstatement was brought before the Court
by the employer after a long duration of time. Consideration of the ratio
of Kirloskar Pneumatic Kamgar Sangh in our case would involve a
consideration of the peculiar facts of our case and it is not apposite for
this Court to consider all this in its review jurisdiction.
6. There is, accordingly, no merit in the review petition. The
review petition is dismissed.
( S.C. GUPTE, J. )
Pg 4 of 4
