JUDGMENT
S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. By judgment dated 2.5.2002, I allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned award dated 25.1.1987. Certain provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act were not brought in my notice during the course of the argument on behalf of the parties. After pronouncement of the judgment, those provisions came to my notice. Hence notices were issued to the learned counsel for the parties to show cause as to why the order dated 2.5.2002 be not reviewed.
2. Both learned counsel for the parties appeared before me and heard.
3. Admitted facts are that opposite party worked as class IV employee between 3.2.1972 to 28.11.1974. O.P. No. 1 along with 28 other workmen were retrenched from service on 28.11.1974. It is not disputed that opposite party No. 1 was assured for re-employment in future. Out of them, 23 class IV employees junior to the opposite party and 4 senior to him were retrenched. According to opposite party No. 1, the Bank appointed a number of junior persons, but he was not re-appointed. Hence the opposite party workman applied for referring a dispute to the labour court.
4. The labour court held that the reference of re-appointment on the ground of retrenchment was maintainable in the labour court and the workman is entitled to get re-appointment.
5. At the time of hearing, Section 6Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was not brought to my notice, the same is being quoted :
“Where any workman was retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employment any person, he shall in such manner as may be prescribed giving an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment, and the retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.”
6. In this connection. Section 2A of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, is also necessary to be quoted here :
“Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.”
7. The workman has a statutory right of re-appointment. As in the present case, employer proposes, to take retrenched employee in employment. The opposite party who was a retrenched employee is entitled to get preference over other junior persons. This statutory right vests in the favour of the opposite party.
8. Now taking into consideration Section 2A as well as Section 6Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, it is clear that any dispute or difference between workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such retrenchment shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute. I refer two words from Section 2A of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (where employer-retrenches) any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer “connected with” or “arising, out” – of such retrenchment shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute.
9. Admittedly, the right to get re-appointment flows from the retrenchment and, therefore, the re-appointment is connected with or arises out of retrenchment. From the close scrutiny of Section 2A read with Section 6Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the only conclusion which could be arrived at is that the dispute of re-appointment which is connected with or arising out of retrenchment is the industrial dispute raised by individual.
10. This error of law apparent on the face of record could not be noticed by me at the time when the case was finally decided.
11. Since there is an error of law apparent on the face of record, which according to me, causing miscarriage of Justice.
12. Power of review by High Court has been discussed in detail in the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2000 (1) SCC 666. Paragraph 17 is being quoted below :
“If such power of correcting its own record is denied to the High Court, when it notices the apparent errors, its consequence is that the superior status of the High Court will dwindle down. Therefore, it is only proper to think that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of the record.”
13. In view of the fact discussed above, I consider it appropriate to review my own order dated 2.5.2002.
14. Thus, the order dated 2.5.2002 passed by me is reviewed. The writ petition is re-registered on its original number and be heard and decided on merits. Since I have expressed my opinion while reviewing the matter, it will be appropriate that the case may be decided by some other Hon’ble Judge.
15. List before some other Hon’ble Judge after getting nomination from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.