- (1.) All these petitions have been Admitted by an order passed by this Court on 18/02/2003 which reads as under : " Heard Shri S.B.Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Shelke, for respondents 1, 2 and 5. 2. The only point which is raised in these petitions is, whether the Industrial Court can review its final order, by exercising powers under section 30 subsection (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 3. The Industrial Court, on December 30, 1994 disposed of five complaints filed by the employees working with the petitionerMunicipal Council. After dismissal of the complaints i.e. after lapse of two years i.e. on July 10, 1996, the respondents filed Review Application, seeking review of the orders dated 30th December, 1994 on the ground that while passing of the order, the Industrial Court has not considered the effect of the Standing Orders and the settlement arrived at between the employees and the Municipal Council and ignoring those provisions, relief has been granted from the date of the order and not from the date on which the respective employees completed 180 or 240 days continuous work respectively. The learned Member of the Industrial Court reviewed its earlier order by modification that the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of permanency for the purpose of seniority w.e.f. Completion of 180 or 240 days service in the respective years. The review application came to be allowed on 30th November, 2001. The order passed by the Industrial Court is the subjectmatter of these petitions. 4. Shri S.K. Shelke, learned Advocate has invited my attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Association of Engineering Workers Mumbai Vs. A.T.V. Ltd. Mumbai, 2002 2 CurLR 387 where the learned Judge has taken a view that final order also can be reviewed. 5. Though in a given case, the Court or the Tribunal can review its order in the interest of justice, but while reviewing the order, ground for review must be present. Generally the Review Applications are allowed or entertained on the backdrop of the provisions contained in O 47 R 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case, the review was sought on the ground that while passing the original order, the Industrial Court has not considered the Standing Orders, which has a force of law and the settlement between the Union and the Municipal Council. These facts were well within the knowledge of the parties and having not brought to the notice of the Industrial Court at the time of passing of the orders, this cannot come within the purview of the review jurisdiction. This question is required to be considered at a later stage by this Court. 6. Hence, Rule. 7. Hearing expedited. 8. Mr.Deshmukh, seeks permission to delete the names of respondent 2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.4496/2002. Permission granted. 9. All petitions to be heard together. 10. Mr.Shelke, waives service for those respondents for whom he has filed appearance."
(2.) Since the brief facts of this case have been reproduced in the above order, I do not wish to repeat the said facts. Issue is as regards whether a litigating party could prefer a review petition under the M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, seeking review of the final judgment delivered by the Industrial and Labour Court. This issue is no longer Resintegra.
(3.) Suffice it to say that there was a difference of opinion in between the two learned judges of this Court.;