- (1.) By means of this petition the applicants pray for the review of our order dated 10/03/1986 dismissing the petitioners special leave petition.
(2.) The petitioners contend that a similar petition filed by one Satish Kumar who was also employed as Workman in the Cooperative Sugar Mill, bagpat was allowed by another bench of this court, and the High court's order dismissing the writ petition was set aside and the order of termination was quashed. It is contended that since the petitioners' case is identical with that of satish Kumar*, we should recall our order disissing the special leave petition challenging the order of the High court dated 17/10/1985 which has been set aside in Satish Kumar's case. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and we have also considered the review application and the connected papers but we do not find any good reason to recall our order dated 10th march 1986. The petitioners were workmen employed in the Cooperative Sugar Mill, Bagpat, a mill managed by a Cooperative Society. The petitioners could not be treated as employees of the U. P. Co-operative Cane Federation, Lucknow or government employees. They were therefore not entitled to the protection available to a government servant or to an employee of Cooperative cane Federation Lucknow. It appears that this aspect was not brought to the notice of the bench which allowed the Special Leave Petition of Satish Kumar It further appears that our order dated 10/03/1986 which had been passed by a bench consisting of three Judges was not brought to the notice of the bench which consisted of two Judges, when the Special Leave petition filed by Satish Kumar was allowed. Had our order dated 10/03/1986 been brought to the notice of the bench hearing the special leave petition of Satish Kumar in all likelihood the same would have also been dismissed.
(3.) We do not find any reason to review our order dated 10/03/1986. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.;