KALAVATI BHARSINGH THAPA Vs. MAHARASHTRA PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE short point which arises for consideration is that on final disposal of the complaint under MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, (hereinafter called as "the said Act") whether the Labour Court would have the power to review its judgment. The facts of the case disclose that the workman filed the complaint under the said Act before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice under Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the said Act. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court by its order dated 20th April, 1994 directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service and full back wages from 6th December, 1984. The respondents filed an application for review of the said order being Misc. Review Application (ULP) No. 10 of 1994. The same was allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated 15th July, 1994. The workman filed revision application being Application (ULP) No. 1000 of 1994 before the Industrial Court which came to be rejected by an order dated 27th October, 1999. The workman thereafter filed the Review Application being Application (ULP) No. 26 of 1999 before the Industrial Court. However, the same came to be dismissed on 1st March, 2001. During the pendency of the review application, the workman expired on 7th March, 2000 and thereafter, the petitioner was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased workman. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Labour Court after disposing of the complaint on merits, has sought to entertain the review application at the instance of the opponent in the said complaint on the ground that certain documents were not brought to the notice of the Labour Court at the time of the disposal of the said complaint.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision empowering the Labour Court to review its judgment passed in the complaint filed under the said Act. A limited power of review available under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the said Act, relates to the interim orders passed in such complaint and not to the final order disposing the complaint, and therefore, the Labour Court is not empowered to review the final judgment passed in the complaint. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents placing reliance i'n the decisions of the Apex Court in (Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial tribunal and others), reported in A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 606, and in the matter of (Union of India and another v. Ashwani Kumar)2, reported in 1994 (1) L. L. J. 677, and of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (Mafatlal engineering Industries Ltd. v. Mafatlal Engg. Industries Employees' Union and ors.)3, reported in 1992 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. 756 : 1992 (1) C. L. R. 418, submitted that the power to review can be exercised in two distinct senses, (i) a procedural review and (ii) a review on merits. Considering the fact that the relevant documents and the Metropolitan Magistrate's order, based on which earlier judgment was passed were infact stayed, and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court earlier, and was sought to be brought to the notice of the Labour Court in review petition, the same would amount to a procedural review, applying the law laid down by the Apex court in Grindlays Bank (supra), and therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Labour Court.