Dismissed¶23

Vinod Trambakrao Dhage (Amended as Per Order Dt. 26-6-2023) v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Thr. Manager

Bombay HC18 Nov 2025MCA/675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application dismissed; error apparent on face of record; Model Standing Orders; permanency and regularization; Industrial Court complaints; workmen ceased employment 9 to 23 years before approaching Industrial Court; continuance and recurring cause of action; Vinod Trambakrao Dhage and others v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Manish Pitale, J.; MCA 675 of 2023 in WP 7192 of 2019; judgment under review dated 27.11.2020; review arguments appellate in nature.

What did the court decide?

A review application can be entertained only if it is demonstrated that there has been an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment of which review is sought. ¶18

Vinod Trambakrao Dhage (Amended as Per Order Dt. 26-6-2023) Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Thr. Manager — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants' plea that certain judgments, including a Full Bench judgment of this Court and a judgment of the Supreme Court, were not brought to the notice of the Court when the writ petitions were heard and disposed of furnishes a ground for review. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

All the issues that arose for consideration from the impugned orders of the Industrial Court were referred to and dealt with, in detail, in the judgment dated 27.11.2020 of this Court.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

A review application can be entertained only if it is demonstrated that there has been an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment of which review is sought.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Model Standing Orders aspect was in fact referred to in the judgment dated 27.11.2020, in the context of the claim of continuance and recurring cause of action raised on behalf of the applicants-workmen.ratio¶19
The complaints seeking the relief of permanency and regularization could not have been entertained by the Industrial Court, particularly in the admitted position that the applicants-workmen had ceased to be in employment of the company for periods between 9 to 23 years before approaching it.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review application – maintainable only on demonstration of an error apparent on the face of the record (Manish Pitale, J.; Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; 18.11.2025): MISC. CIVIL (REVIEW) APPLICATION NO.675 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7192 OF 2019, Vinod Trambakrao Dhage and others v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. The applicants-workmen sought review of the judgment and order dated 27.11.2020, whereby a bunch of writ petitions was allowed, the Industrial Court's judgments and orders were set aside and the workmen's complaints seeking permanency and regularization were dismissed. Grounds urged: certain judgments (including a Full Bench judgment of this Court and a Supreme Court judgment) and the aspect of Model Standing Orders were allegedly not brought to the Court's notice. Held: all issues arising from the impugned Industrial Court orders were dealt with in detail in the 2020 judgment, which in fact referred to the Model Standing Orders in the context of the claim of continuance and recurring cause of action, and reproduced in paragraph 8 a chart of the workmen's last dates of employment versus complaint-filing dates; the workmen had admittedly ceased employment for periods between 9 to 23 years before approaching the Industrial Court. The review arguments were held to be appellate in nature; no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated; the review application was dismissed.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:12545

¶2

2_MCA675_23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

MISC. CIVIL (REVIEW) APPLICATION NO.675 OF 2023 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7192 OF 2019

¶6

Vinod Trambakrao Dhage and others … Applicants Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited … Non-Applicant

¶7

Mr. S. D. Thakur for Applicants.

¶8

Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate for Non-applicant.

¶9

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2025 (Through VC)

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Heard Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. Bhangde, learned senior counsel appearing for the non-applicant in this review application.

¶12

By this review application, the applicants seek review of judgement and order dated 27.11.2020 passed by this Court, whereby a bunch of writ petitions were allowed, the impugned judgements and orders of the Industrial Court were set aside and the complaints filed by the respondents workmen were dismissed.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that certain judgements were not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petitions were heard and disposed of. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, these include a Full Bench judgement of this Court and a judgement of the Supreme Court. A perusal of the grounds raised in the review application shows that none of these judgements find any mention therein. Nonetheless, the principal ground for review

¶14

1/3

¶15

2_MCA675_23.doc

¶16

raised on behalf of the applicants is that the aspect of Model Standing Orders was not brought to the notice of this Court and that for the fault of the employer in applying them in letter and spirit, the grievance of the applicants could not have been brushed aside.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the non-applicant company submits that the judgement of this Court is a detailed judgement, containing reasons and all these issues have been referred to and dealt with. It is emphasized that the applicants workmen had ceased to be in employment of the company for periods between 9 to 23 years before they approached the Industrial Court with their complaints seeking the relief of permanency and regularization. This aspect was dealt with in detail in the said judgement and therefore, the application does not deserve any consideration.

¶18

It is settled position of law that a review application can be entertained only if it is demonstrated that there has been an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgement, of which review is sought.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the opinion that all the issues that arose for consideration from the impugned orders of the Industrial Court were referred to and dealt with, in detail, in the judgement of this Court. There was a reference made to the Model Standing Orders also in the context of the claim of continuance and recurring cause of action raised on behalf of the applicants - workmen. Having considered the issues arising in the matter in a comprehensive manner and after referring to various judgements, this Court found that the complaints seeking the relief of permanency and regularization could not have been entertained by the Industrial Court, particularly in the admitted position on facts that the applicants - workmen had ceased to be in employment of the company for periods

¶20

2/3

¶21

2_MCA675_23.doc

¶22

between 9 to 23 years, and thereafter, they had approached the Industrial Court raising their grievance. In fact, in the judgement itself, in paragraph 8, a chart was reproduced giving the details of the applicants - workmen with regard to their last dates in employment and the dates on which they filed the complaints.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the manner in which the review application is being argued is more in the nature of an appeal, which cannot be permitted. The applicants have failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of record and hence, this Court declines to entertain this review application. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

¶24

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶25

Minal Parab

¶26

3/3

Vinod Trambakrao Dhage (Amended as Per Order Dt. 26-6-2023) v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Thr. Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Trambakrao Dhage (Amended as Per Order Dt. 26-6-2023) v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Thr. Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India vs Suresh J Thanawala

Dhanlaxmi Fabrics Ltd. vs Hitesh Coal Traders

Dipakkumar Patel vs the Administrator Union Territory and Anr.

Bharat Shah Sole Proprietor of Ms Rakshit Steels vs the Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Pramod Shamrao Patole vs Gomati wd/o Dorai Swamy

Rajeshkumar Mohansinh Thakor vs the Administrator Union Territory and Anr.