Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Anr. v. Shashimohan s
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Jan 2009
- Bench
- A P LAVANDE
Outcome
Disposed of
Application stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 s. 20(1)
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
Judgment
learned counsel applicants. By this application, the applicants seek review of judgment and order dated 5.8.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5395/2005 making the Rule absolute. The main grievance of the applicants in the present application is that this Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by holding that the authority appointed under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a Court and, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. According to Mrs. Joshi, this finding given by this Court is patently erroneous and discloses an error apparent on the face of the record. According to Mrs. Joshi, the authority appointed under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a quasi judicial authority and cannot be construed as a Court and, therefore, Section 5 of 2 Limitation Act is not applicable. In support of her submission, learned counsel relied upon the following authorities:- (1) (2008) 7 SCC 169 : Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs.
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others; (2) (3) 2006 (2005) E.L.T. 71 (Bom.) Navinon Ltd. vs. Union of India, and (2003) 8 SCC 431 Prakash H. Jain Vs. Marie Fernades (Ms.). Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and having perused the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008, I am of the considered opinion that the application is liable to be dismissed. This Court, in the impugned judgment, has held that the ratio laid down in P. Sarathy V. State Bank of India (2000) 5 SCC 355 is squarely applicable in the present case and, therefore, the authority appointed under Section 20(1) is a Court and consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1960 is applicable. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the judgment delivered by this Court is not correct. This is not a ground for review of the judgment. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in 3 Northern India Caterers v.
Operative part
Lt. Governor, Delhi : AIR 1980 SC 674 in which the Apex Court has held that if the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Apex Court has further held that a party is not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by the Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The ratio laid down in the case of Northern India Caterers (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore, I find no ground to review the impugned judgment. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, Mrs. Joshi submits in the judgment dated 5.8.2008 in para 7, “Section 21” has been wrongly mentioned instead of “Section 20(1)”. Similarly, in para 6 at page no.2 “P. Sarthy Vs. State of India” has been mentioned instead of “P.Sarthy Vs. State Bank of India” . Mrs. Joshi is right in her submission. Registry to carry out necessary corrections in the judgment. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Ambulkar. JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — s. 20(1); Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Jan 2009. The bench was A P LAVANDE.
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.