DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 9. 10. 1998, passed by the labour court allowing the application of the respondent and setting aside the award dated 8. 7. 1997 reopening the Adjudication Case No. 49 of 1992.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances of the case giving rise to this case are that petitioner who had been working with respondent No. 2, had been removed from service vide order dated 1. 7. 1991. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied petitioner raised an Industrial dispute, and the appropriate government vide order dated 21. 4. 1992 in exercise of its power under Section 4k of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, the Act) made the reference to the labour court as to whether the termination was in accordance with law, and if not, to what relief he was entitled to? in pursuance of the said reference workman filed the claim petition and the contesting respondents entered into appearance through their departmental representatives. However, after appearing on few dates, the departmental representatives did not attend the proceedings, and labour court proceeded ex parte and made the Award dated 8. 7. 1997, set aside the order of termination and issued the direction of reinstatement with notional security, but, the workman was deprived of the back wages. When the petitioner workman wanted the execution of the said award dated 8. 7. 1997 on 2nd September, 1998, the contesting respondents filed an application before the labour court for setting aside the Award. The said application has been allowed. The matter has been reopened. Hence, this petition.

( 3 ) IN Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar, AIR 1965 SC 1457, the honble Supreme Court had held that in absence of any power of review, the Tribunal could not have subsequently reconsidered its previous decision and the subsequent order re-opening the matter was Illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) IN Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 641, the Honble Apex Court has held that in absence of any provision in the Act granting express power of review, It is manifest that review could not be made and the order in review was ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction and the High Court has rightly quashed it by the grant of writ under Article 226 of the constitution.

( 5 ) WHILE deciding the said case, the Honble Supreme Court placed reliance on a large number of judgments, particularly in Drew v. Mills, 1891 (1) QB 45o Hession v. Johns, 1914 (2) KG 421 ; in Re : St. Nazaire Company, (1879) 12 Ch D 88 and Baijnath Ram Goyanka v. Nand Kumar singh, 14 IA 54 (PC), wherein it had categorically been held that the power of setting aside an order, which has been made after hearing the arguments, does not He unless it is given by the statute, The Court, under the Statute, cannot review an order deliberately made after argument and entertain a fresh argument upon it with a view to ultimately confirming or reversing it. The courts may have limited power only to make a necessary correction if the order, as drawn up, did not express the intention of the Court. A party is entitled to assail the judgment only by the mode as indicated in the Statute and in absence of express provision of review, it cannot be entertained for the reason that review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same Officer who decided the case.

( 6 ) IN Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273, the honble Apex Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and in absence of any provision in the Act, review of an earlier order is impermissible.

( 7 ) IN Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan and Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 1814, the Apex court followed the earlier referred two Judgments in Chunnibhai and Harbhan Singh (supra), and observed that it is well-settled that review is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document