WPMS/689/2016
2021 Latest Caselaw 1047 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No. 689 of 2016
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

This writ petition was adjudicated by this Court finally by the judgment dated 12.08.2020, whereby the writ petition, which was preferred by the petitioner i.e. Laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., as against the impugned award, which was passed by the learned Preciding Officer Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Haldwani in an Adjudication Case No. 1 of 2005, Iqbalpur Sugar Workers Uniioin Iqbalpur, Haridwar Vs. Laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. District Haridwar, was decided and the writ petition was allowed.

The respondents have filed a Review Application, supported with the Delay Condonation Application, seeking condonation of 45 days delay, which has chanced in filing the review application.

Considering the grounds taken in the Delay Condonation Application that delay has chanced due to the pandemic and also because of the fact that the delay condonation is not being seriously opposed by the respondent's counsel, the delay, which has chanced in filing the review application, would stand condoned, accordingly, the delay condonation application would stand allowed.

The review is taken on merits. The learned counsel for the review applicant (respondent herein) had tried to venture into the merits determination of the judgment dated 12.08.2020; on various grounds as if he was soliciting a rehearing of the writ petition by this Court, which has already been decided on 12.08.2020, and that too, with regards to the question about the impact of the registration or non-registration of the union and its right to adjudicate or agitate its claim before the Courts.

I am of the view that the grounds as taken in the review application, cannot be a ground of review as apparently these aspects have already been dealt with by this Court in the aforesaid judgement. Hence, I do not find any merit in the review, the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 22.03.2021 Mahinder/