AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. no.150 of 2023 and RVWPET No.103 of 2023
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of review applicant. He submits, the application was made on delay of two days. A condonation of delay application has also been filed.
Mr. Pati, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party in the writ petition. In fairness he does not oppose the condonation of delay application.
The condonation of delay application is allowed on condoning the delay. The application is disposed of.
Mr. Mishra, submits, review has been sought of judgment dated 27th February, 2023, by which we dismissed the writ petition. He submits, the workmen, including opposite party in the writ petition, did not complete work of 240 days in a year. The hostel superintendent had produced the muster roll in evidence, not considered by the Labour Court. This fact was not brought notice of this Court, when dealing with the writ petition. Secondly, the workmen, including opposite party in the writ petition, had forged their appointment letters and identity cards. This too was not considered by the Labour Court. These are good grounds for review.
He submits further, after the award was passed and his client had challenged it in this Court, an interim order was made, pursuant to which his client offered the workmen reinstatement. They took the reinstatement but abandoned the work. In the circumstances, they ought not to have been heard in support of the award.
Mr. Pati submits, applicant was heard on the writ petition and no ground for review has been made out.
We find applicant was represented at hearing of the writ petition, by separate counsel. So far as first and second grounds are concerned, on query from Court, Mr. Mishra was constrained to submit that the points were not taken in the writ petition, neither as statement of facts nor as grounds. Moving on to the third ground regarding offer and acceptance of reinstatement pursuant to order of Court making it a condition for stay of execution, we reproduce below paragraph 11 from interim order dated 28th January, 2022 of co-ordinate Bench, made earlier in the writ petition.
“11. Considering the submissions made and peculiar facts of this case and without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, in the interim it is directed that the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sonepur in Execution Case No. 11 of 2017 shall remain stayed till next date and the executing Court is directed to release the attached items in favour of the petitioner subject to petitioner reinstating the opposite party in the service forthwith. It is made clear that this order will in no way influence the final adjudication of the writ petition on merits.”
(emphasis supplied)
In view of aforesaid no more need be said regarding the review application being without merit. It is dismissed.
……………………………..