APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE JOINT ORDER PASSED SHRI COURT v. Rwiew Petttton Mto. 24 of 2<X» (Review sought for the order dt
Case at a glance
- Bench
- HIGH
Provisions considered
Judgment
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE JOINT ORDER PASSED SHRI COURT , (HON'BLE HON'BLE 1N WRIT PETITION N0. BY S.K.AGNIHOTRI) DATED 27/07/2006 1404/2003. JUSTICE HIGH 1 L HICBB COURT <W JUDICATURB CaiHATTOBaAKUi BUAWUR •'». Sta^te Bench: Hon'bte StoiSAish K. Agriliotri, J. Revlew PeUUon Bo. 21 of20C» KN»»lrtf<p^<WW*f*^»»^J»^^»»*»<»W^»N*l (Review soughtforfhe oiderdt. 27.7.2006 inW.P.No. 1379/2003) Petitioner : Chliattisgarh Rajya Kriishi Vipanaa Boatd, Raipur & anofhcr Versus Respondents : PresMlmg Offfcer, Labour Court & ofhers Rev*«wP^ttton »o.28 »t2006 (Review sought for the order dt 27.7.2006 in W.P.No. 1404/2003) Petjtioner : r'Tihattisgnrh Rajya Krishi Wpanan Boari, Raipur & anolbcr Respoiidents ; Presidu^ Ofi&wr, Labour Court & othcrs Veraus Review P^ttlon Ho. 89 of 2006 (Review sought for fhe order dt 27.7.2006 in W.P.No. 1403/2003) Ptetitfoner ; Chhatdsgarh Rqya Krishi Vipanan Doard, Raipur & anotfacr Respondents : Presidmg Officer, LE&OUT Court & ofhers Versus Rwiew Petttton Mto. 24 of 2<X» (Review sought for the order dt 27.7.2006 in W.P.No. 1402/2003) Petitioner : Chliatti^^rh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Raipur & aaothcr Respondents : Presiding Offiteer, Labour Court & othecs Veraus Shn Ranbir Su^h Marhas, Advocate for fhe review petitioners. Shri Ainit Verma for thc 'respoiident No.2. ORDBR ( P«u»edon tbte 13th day ®fDecember»2<W6(
The preseat applications fifed by fhe Chhattisgarh Ks^ya. Krishl Vipanan Board, Raipur and its Deputy Secretary, seete a review of the order datE-d 27tt» >Jnly, 2006 passacd by this Conrt in W.P.No.s 1379/2003, 1404/2003, 1403/W(» and l402/'W03 ", 'i. on fhe ground (hat fhey were not impleMed as party before the Labour Court as weU as befbre fhis Court.
Wifh the consent of the pardes, fhe aaatter fe be aid. finalfy and afl. tfae fbur Review Pstitioa No.s 21, 28, 29 and 24 <rf 2006, are being disposed of by this common oider, as Qusy ha»e been filed against tlie. common onler dt. 27ttl Jiity, 3^06 paasaed by tfais Court and fhe poiats raised and groimds urgied in fhe revicw petitioners are one and the same.
The review petitk>ners would submit that fhere ane certam Rules whfch are applicable to fhe employees involved in fhc present cases, but ultimately fhe decision passed by this Court inay not be altered in view of the fact fhat fhe employees were not appointed in accordance wifh the constituttonat acheme.
Be fhat s^ it may, fhe necessary unpteadment stould hawe been made before the Labour Coiut. The Labour Court had passcd the oider afier consideriaig retevant pleaduqis aiad documente placed on recoid. This Court, in its jurisdictton under Articte 226 of fhe Constitution of India bas considered fhe entire case on facts as weU as on ttie aspect of pxoceduBal irreguladty, mfirmily and iUegality ia the oider passed by fhe Labour Court and the matter was accord it^ty dfamissed.
In view of the foregomg, the proper case is aot made out &r reviewiag fhe order in accordance wifh the icquiTements for review of an order as per law. The Review Petition No.s 21, 28, 29 aod 24 of 2006 are accordmgty disinisscd. No oider as to costs, Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge <s
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.