ASSAM PETROLEUM MAZDOOR UNION Vs. OIL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Rule is an attempt to bring to life a dead horse by resorting to hogging.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows:-

(3.) I have heard Shri S.N. Bhuyan, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Sarma, learned Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2, None appears for Respondents No.3 and 4. Sri Bhuyan relying on 1991(2) GLR 384 (Haren Hazarika Petitioner-Vs- State of Assam & Qrs, Respondents) submits that the prayer which was made before the Tribunal was not actually a prayer for review on merit, but to set aside an order which was irregular order and he further submits that failure to review or refusal to review an order would perpetuate a fraud and/or allow an injustice to prevail. On the other hand the learned advocate for the Management submits that this contention is not correct. The order passed was regular and it was passed on a joint application of the parties after recording of settlement and there was no fraud whatsoever inasmuch as this Gopal Kalita was an authori sed officer of the Union and the Union did not produce its proceeding Book wherein there was a resolution agreeing to the settlement as well as the term of the settlement Shri Sarma urges that if that would have been produced that would have clinched the whole issue. Shri Sarma submits that it is a fight between two Unions and that will not make the award passed by the Tribunal an irregular and/or a fraudulent one. The submission of Shri Sarma is that the finding of the Tribunal regarding power of review is also against the decision of the Apex Court, where it is categorically laid down that an industrial Tribunal has no power to review and it has not been given that power of review ;in the statute and if that power is not given in the statute that power can not be utilised by the Tribunal. No doubt certain irregular orders may be set aside as held by Apex Court, but that is not the situation in this case. Shri Sarma places reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 606 (Grindlays Bank Limited, Appellant-Vs-The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, Respondents), the question which arose for decision in that particular case was mentioned in paragraph-3, that is quoted below:-