JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The writ petitioner, opposite party herein, was engaged as an Ancillary Worker under Food Corporation of India (FCI) F.S. Depot, Dhenkanal, pursuant to which he joined on 06.07.1992. Accordingly an Identity Card was issued by the District Manager of the Corporation registering him an Ancillary Worker having registration no. 181. He was also enrolled as a member of a registered trade union. He was critically ill and was advised complete bed rest and medical certificate in support of his illness was produced. After he was found fit, a joining report was submitted on 22.04.1999, but the same was not accepted. Consequentially, he made representation on 14.05.1999 to allow him to discharge his duty as before. Since no action was taken, he submitted a fresh representation on 17.06.1999, and the same having not been considered, he approached this Court by filing OJC No. 8053 of 1999. In the said writ petition it was contended that, non-allowing the writ petitioner to join or resume the duty, would amount to termination, which was in gross violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as well as principles of natural justice. Pursuant to notice issued on 08.07.1999, learned counsel for opposite parties entered appearance by filing vakalatnama, but did not choose to file counter affidavit to rebut the contention raised in the writ petition. Therefore, after long lapse of 16 years, when the matter was heard by this Court, in absence of any counter, applying the doctrine of non-traverse, this Court allowed the writ application by judgment dated 27.02.2015 by holding that non-acceptance of the joining report of the writ petitioner by the authority was arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, as well as violative of principles of natural justice and the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service with effect from his date of joining, i.e., 22.04.1999 and would be entitled to get all consequential benefits admissible in accordance with law.

2. Against the said judgment dated 27.02.2015, the review petitioners, who were the opposite parties in the writ application, filed Writ Appeal No. 163 of 2015 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal by passing the following order :

“The pleadings made in the writ appeal as well as the submissions made before this Court appears to be not available before the leaned Single Judge for consideration even though the matter was pending for 15 years in this Court. The learned Single Judge has passed the judgment based on the materials available on record. The materials produced in support of the appellants also appear to have been procured after the disposal of the writ petition and thus was not available for consideration of the learned Single Judge.

Under the circumstances, we don’t find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.”

The Division Bench of this Court, as did not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, was declined to entertain the writ appeal and by order dated 22.09.2015 dismissed the same summarily, but, however, made an observation that it would be open for the appellant therein (review petitioners) to file an appropriate application for review of the judgment before the learned Single Judge. In view of the observation made in order dated 22.09.2015 passed in the writ appeal, the review petitioner has filed this application on 5.11.2015 for review of the judgment dated 27.02.2015 passed in OJC No. 8053 of 1999.

3. The Review application has been filed at a belated stage on expiry of 336 days. Excluding the limitation period of 30 days, the delay of 306 days has been caused in preferring the review application. Therefore, a miscellaneous application (Misc. Case No. 214 of 2015) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 306 days caused in preferring the review applicati