Allowed

Shri. Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi v. the General Manager, Best

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013RPW/40/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a review petition filed against a review petition dismissal. The court found the initial dismissal was based on an inadvertent statement by counsel claiming non-implementation of orders. The relief was revoked to correct the oversight.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 4th May, 2012 in the review petition is revoked and the writ petition is revived.

Shri. Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi Vs the General… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13

¶2

SSK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 65 OF 2013 IN

¶5

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 5525 OF 2013 in WRIT PETITION NO. 10888 OF 2011

¶6

Shri Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi ....Applicant/ Petitioner Versus The General Manager, BEST ....Respondent

¶7

Mr. H. R. Singh, advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. P. M. Palshikar i/b. M. V. Kini & Co., advocates for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶9

^h April, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

For the reasons stated in Paragraph Nos. 5 to 9, delay of 121

¶12

days occurred in filing the review petition is condoned and the civil application is disposed of as such.

¶13

The Registry is directed to number the review petition.

¶14

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶15

Shubhada S Kadam 1/4

¶16

Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13

¶17

SSK

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶19

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 5525 OF 2013 IN

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 10888 OF 2011

¶21

Shri Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi ....Petitioner Versus The General Manager, BEST ....Respondent

¶22

Mr. H. R. Singh, advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. P. M. Palshikar i/b. M. V. Kini & Co., advocates for the respondent.

¶23

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶24

^h April, 2013.

¶25

P.C.:

¶26

By consent, the review petition is taken up for hearing.

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶28

The review petition is filed to recall the judgment and order dated 4^th May, 2012, passed in Writ Petition No.10888 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order :

¶29

“Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the impugned order is already implemented. Therefore, he does not press the petition. Same is, accordingly, disposed of.”

¶30

Shubhada S Kadam 2/4

¶31

Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13

¶32

Thus, the writ petition was disposed of on the statement of the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order is implemented.

¶33

The Labour Court by its Order dated 8^th April, 2010, allowed the petitioner's complaint partly. The relief of reinstatement was rejected as the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation. However, the respondent was held liable to pay back-wages for 33 months from September, 2004 to May, 2007 to the petitioner. It seems that this order was subsequently modified on 7^th May, 2010 and petitioner was held entitled for 50% back-wages for the aforesaid period of 33 months. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision before the Industrial Court but the same was dismissed by an order impugned in the writ petition.

¶34

The writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel by making a statement that the said impugned order is implemented. The petitioner challenged the Labour Court's Order dated 8^th April, 2010, as modified on 7^th May, 2010. The respondent paid to the petitioner the amount of 50% back-wages for the aforesaid period of 33 months as per the modified order of the Labour Court. The petitioner, by filing the said writ petition, challenged the Industrial Court's order. The respondent

¶35

Shubhada S Kadam 3/4

¶36

Sr.No.2 cao 65.13 & rpw st. 5525.13

¶37

never challenged either the Labour Court's order or the Industrial Court's order. It is the contention of the petitioner that the statement was made by the his counsel inadvertently and due to communication gap. I find that there is substance in this contention. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 4^th May, 2012 is revoked.

¶38

6. In view of the above, the review petition is disposed of.

¶39

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶40

4/4

¶41

Shubhada S Kadam

Shri. Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi v. the General Manager, Best

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi v. the General Manager, Best

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Arjan Vaswani Vs the Official Liquidator of Mafatlal Engineering Industries Limited and Anr.

Jyothy Laboratories Limited Vs

Icm Packaging Private Limited Vs -

Shri. Devnarayan Baijnath Trivedi Vs the General Manager, Best

Soft Clad Laminates Private Limited Vs -----------------

Seeinfobiz Private Limited Vs ---------