AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar
Heard Learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.N. Murthy, appearing on behalf of review petitioner. Petitioner is seeking review of the order passed on 13.03.2012 whereunder the writ petition has been allowed in part and award of the Labour Court dated 26.10.2010 Annexure-J to the extent of awarding 30% back wages from 15.04.1993 till reinstatment into service is set aside and it has been ordered that respondent-workmen would be entitled to back wages at the rate of 30% from the date of order of reference i.e., 18.09.2001 till date of reinstatement only.
It is the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that a submission was made by the arguing counsel Sri. Somashekar to the effect that 81 workmen who had been removed without conducting any enquiry had been reinstated without any back wages and this statement should have been accepted either in full or rejected in full and this court should not have taken partial submission into consideration with regard to reinstatement and could not have paosed order on merits. He would elaborate his submission by contending that this ground would come within the four corners of "for any other sufficient reason" as envisaged under clause (c) of sub rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order 47 and as such he seeks for review of the order,
At the outset it is to be observed that order sought of learned advocates appearing for parties. Learned counsel for petitioner was fully aware of as to what was dictated in the open court. He knew the contents of the order. He did not raise any objection with regard to order that was passed by this court in open court. The present Review petition is not accompanied by affidavit of the learned counsel who has argued the matter. The grounds urged in the review petition would go to show that it is more in the guise of seeking a rehearing of the matter on merits rather than seeking review of the order on the ground of any error apparent on the face of the record. Be that as it may. It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that 81 workman who had been removed from service of petitioner hospital had been reinstated without back wages. This court on appreciation of evidence in the instant case found that in so far as order of reinstatement is concerned as passed by the Labour court does not suffer from any infirmities and by taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that workmen placed in similar position as that of petitioner had affirmed the order of Labour court to the extent of reinstating the workman. However, in so far the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that no back wages should be paid to the workman though contended was not accepted and taking into consideration the dicta laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, this court is of the considered view that workman was entitled for back wages but not as ordered by Labour court had accordingly ordered for back wages from date of reference till date of reinstatement. 1 do not find any "sufficient reason" or grounds or error apparent on the face of the order to invoke the review jurisdiction. There is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly it stands rejected.