The State Of Maharashtra Revenue And Forest Dept., Mantralaya Mumbai Thr. Secretary And Others v. Van Kamgar Sanghatana Red. No. 3393, Thr. General Secretary Smt. V. Chandra

1 cao1381.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 1381 OF 2016 IN M.C.A. ST. NO. 11971 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4798 OF 2006(D) (STATE OF MAH. REVENUE & FOREST DEPT. & 5 OTH...VS.. VAN KAMGAR SANGHATANA NAGPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Ambrish Joshi, A.G.P. for Applicants.

Shri V.P.Marpakwar, Advocate for Non-applicant. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JULY 05, 2017.

Heard Shri Ambrish Joshi, A.G.P. for the applicants and Shri V.P.Marpakwar, advocate for the nonapplicant. Accepting the explanation given in the application, delay of 152 days in filing the review application is condoned.

The civil application is allowed accordingly. M.C.A.ST.NO. 11971/2016.

Taken up for hearing.

Heard.

By this application, the applicants-employer seek

2 cao1381.16 review of the judgment passed by this Court on 16th December, 2015. By this judgment the challenges raised by the applicants to the order passed by the Industrial Court directing regularization of services of the daily wagers giving benefit of Government Resolution dated 16th October, 2012 is rejected.

The review is sought mainly on the ground that the question, whether the Social Forestry is an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not is under consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

This ground was raised in the petition, argued at the time of hearing and is dealt with in paragraph No.3 of the judgment. Only because the issue is under consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it cannot be said that the petition could not have been decided. In any case, it cannot be said that the judgment is required to be reviewed on this ground. The learned A.G.P. has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record which necessitates exercise of review jurisdiction.

The review application is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE RRaut..