R.K.MERATHIA - (1.) THIS review application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 21.7.2004 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3409 of 2004.
(2.) IT appears that an intra court appeal being L. P.A. No. 41 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner, against the order sought to be reviewed which was dismissed on the ground of delay. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner moved before the Honble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal Nos. 6422 -6423 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2036 -2037 of 2008 which were disposed of on 3.11.2008 by passing the following order: - "These appeals are directed against the order dated 22.6.2007 in Civil Review No. 10/2006 and the order dated 15.12.2005 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 41/2005. The Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has dismissed the LPA because of 99 days delay in filing the LPA. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the peculiar facts and. circumstances of this case, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court, condone the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal and restore the Letters Patent Appeal No. 41 of 2005 to the file of the Division Bench of the High Court. We request the High Court to decide the aforesaid LPA on merits as expeditiously as possible, in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observation, the appeals are disposed of." (emphasis supplied) But the following order was passed in the said LPA on 15.7.2009: - "After some arguments, counsel sought permission to withdraw this appeal to enable him to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge in order to contend whether subsequent event can have a bearing on the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, In view of the request made by the counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn." 5. It is submitted that with regard to deduction of his wages for 26th and 27th August, 1997, on the ground of alleged absence, petitioner moved Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, being B.S.E. Case No. 3/1998, in which, subsequent to the said order passed in the writ petition, order has been passed on 29.9.2004, holding that the petitioner was present on those two days and therefore two days' salary was wrongly deducted. It is further submitted that the subject matter of the writ petition was, petitioner's dismissal on similar grounds that after signing the attendance register, petitioner used to leave the place of work. And therefore, in view of such subsequent event, the order in question be reviewed.
(3.) PETITIONER filed I.A. No. 1431 of 2009, in the said LPA, raising the said plea, but, in spite of order of the Supreme Court for deciding the LPA, on merits, petitioner had to withdraw it after some argument, saying that he will file this review.;