M/S Batliwala And Karani vs Shitla Prasad Shukla & Ors. on 14 September, 2011

6&8$~
  *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     Review Petition No.215/2011 & CM No.5174/2011 (for stay) in
      W.P.(C) 18211/2006
      M/S BATLIWALA & KARANI                     ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Adv.
                                   Versus
      LALIT MOHAN JAIN & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                   Through: None.
                                    AND
+     Review Petition No.216/2011 & CM No.5176/2011 (for stay) in
      W.P.(C) 18288/2006

      M/S BATLIWALA AND KARANI                   ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Adv.
                                   Versus
      SHITLA PRASAD SHUKLA & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                   Through: None.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                         ORDER

% 14.09.2011

1. Review is sought of the judgment dated 11.03.2011 insofar as the

same in para 11 thereof records that on applications of the workmen for

computation of the amount due, the Labour Court found certain amounts to

be due to the workmen.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner / review applicant is

1/2
that the applications filed by the respondent workmen under Section 33C(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were in fact dismissed on 02.04.2008

and the same were wrongfully revived by the Labour Court on application

of the workmen without issuing notice to the petitioner and amounts found

due and stay of recovery whereof was sought from this Court on

26.04.2010. It is further the contention of the counsel for the petitioner /

review applicant that the observations of this Court in para 11 to the effect

that the applications were allowed by the Labour Court are coming in the

way of the petitioner / review applicant seeking remedies against the illegal

revival of the Section 33C(2) proceedings.

3. This Court has in para 11 of the judgment dated 11.03.2011 merely

recorded the factum of the stay having been sought by the petitioner from

this Court on 26.04.2010; else, it has been amply recorded in the order that

the present writ petition was not concerned with the validity of the orders if

any in the Section 33C(2) proceedings.

4. In the circumstances, no ground for review is made out. Review

petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011/’gsr’
2/2