Bombay High Court
Sudhir Kamalkar Ayachit vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
1 RA / 84 / 2022+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 84 OF 2022 IN WP/2098/2015
ANANT NARHARI SONAR
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
THROUGH ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERATION
WITH
1 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 85 OF 2022 IN WP/2097/2015
SUDHIR KAMALKAR AYACHIT
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD THERMAL POWER STATION
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran h/f. Mr. Ashutosh S. Kulkarni
Advocate for the respondent no. 1 : Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate
i/b. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 30 SEPTEMBER 2022
PC :
Heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhakaran h/f. Mr. Kulkarni
for the review applicants and learned Senior advocate Mr. Dixit for the
respondent.
2. By way of these applications, the original respondents from
the writ petitions are praying for recalling / reviewing the final common
judgment and order passed by this Court in their two separate writ
petitions whereby the petitions were allowed and the common
judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court allowing their
2 RA / 84 / 2022+
complaints filed under section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices, 1971 (MRTU and PULP
Act) were allowed inter alia directing conferment of benefits of
permanency with consequential monetary relief.
3. Learned advocate Prabhakaran would vehemently submit
that the writ petitions were not finally argued and still the judgment was
pronounced. He would submit that only the fact that the applicants -
employees would not press for regularization was conceded to and
since the issue regarding power of the Industrial / Labour Court to
direct regularization was referred to the larger bench of the Supreme
Court in view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2016 (Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan Gopal & Ors.) dated 07-02-
2020, learned senior advocate Dixit had not advanced any argument
and still this Court has proceeded to decide the petition finally by the
common judgment and order under review.
4. He would submit that even after the issue regarding
regularization was conceded to, it was always open for the applicants -
employees to pray for equal pay for equal work. The judgment and
order has been passed without extending opportunity of being heard to
the applicants and is violative of the principles of natural justice.
5. He would also submit that the respondents - original
petitioner has not controverted the stand in the review petitions, by
3 RA / 84 / 2022+
filing any affidavit in reply and must be held to have accepted the
position as to what had really transpired before this Court.
6. Mr. Dixit would strenuously oppose the applications.
He would submit that it is surprising that in spite of the matter having
been heard and reserved for judgment, which fact is admitted by the
applicants also, the applicants are taking about turn and raising the
issue. This Court has elaborately considered the matter on merits after
hearing both the sides and has passed the judgment after it was
reserved which is indicative of the fact that even the applicants were
waiting for the judgment. He would submit that there is no formal
defect or error and the judgment has been passed after extending
opportunity of being heard.
7. It is indeed surprising that in spite of the petitions having,
admittedly, been reserved for judgment, which is indicative of the fact
that the arguments were heard finally and the judgment was to be
pronounced after some days, the applicants are raising such an issue.
If at all the matter was to be simply adjourned in view of the reference
made by the Supreme Court to the larger bench and on a concession
given by the applicants, there would not have been any reason for this
Court to reserve the matter for passing the judgment as is indicative
from the Farad notings. One would wonder if the applicants would
have come with the same stand had this Court allowed the writ
4 RA / 84 / 2022+
petitions. It is clearly an afterthought, to come out with such a stand
and try to make capital out of a matter touching the happenings before
the Court in open.
8. When this Court after hearing both the sides had reserved
the petitions for passing judgment and has passed the judgment, a
party cannot be permitted to rake up any issue touching the actual
hearing of the final arguments. If the matter was reserved for judgment
even without hearing the applicants, they would not have kept mum
and waited for the judgment to be pronounced.
9. In my considered view, the very ground being raised by the
applicants undermines the authority of the Court and is bordering
contempt. The applications are liable to be dismissed with exemplary
costs but I am desisting from doing so.
10. Be that as it may, there are no sufficient and cogent
grounds which would enable this Court to undertake a review.
11. The review applications are rejected.
[ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE
arp/
