ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

COMMON ORAL ORDER IN CAs In view of the averments made in the application and in view of submissions made on behalf of the learned advocate for the applicant, delay in filing the Misc.

Civil Application for review is hereby condoned.

Application is allowed.

COMMON ORAL ORDER IN MCAs Heard Mr.Deepak Sanchela for Mr.Dineshkumar Gautam and Mr.Gautam Joshi Ld Senior Advocate for Divyesh Sejpal, for respondent No.1.

1 All these Miscellaneous Civil Applications are filed by Savarkundla Municipality seeking review of the oral orders dated 08.11.2023 / 09.11.2023, passed by the Division Bench (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria & Hon’ble Mr Justice Cheekati. Manvendranath Roy, J) in the respective Letters Patent Appeals.

2 By the orders in the respective Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the orders of the learned Single Judge passed on 25.03.2022. The learned Single Judge and consequentially the Division Bench upheld the judgment and awards of the Industrial Tribunal in different cases to dismiss all petitions.

3 Briefly stated, the respondent workmen had approached the Industrial Tribunal claiming regularization of their services on the ground that they had been working with the Municipality in different capacities for over a long period. Their continuance as daily rated workmen, though there were posts available, amounted to unfair labour practice. The Tribunal, held in favour of the workmen in the respective awards granting them the benefit of regularization from their date of appointment, however, treating the period from their date of appointment to the date of reference as notional.

4 The Division Bench in the Appeals referring to various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeals. The Municipality went in Appeal before the Supreme Court, which also vide order dated 16.01.2024, dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

5 Mr.Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Dineshkumar Gautam, would make the following submissions:

5.1 That a review is necessary as the Division Bench in exercise of their powers of review needs to reconsider certain aspects, namely, (a) whether regularization was warranted of the workmen in absence of sanctioned posts which was produced by way of Exh.14 before the Tribunal. The Division Bench not dealing with the same amounted to an error which merited review of the orders.

(b) That an identical issue was raised in LPA 947 of 2023, wherein, the learned Single Judge passed an order of regularization which was confirmed by the Division Bench and in two set of similar cases, since different orders were passed, the orders needed to be reviewed.

(c) The Tribunal, did not consider the aspect of educational qualification of the workmen and the order of the Tribunal was passed mechanically.

6 Mr.G.M.Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr.Divyesh Sejpal for the concerned workmen would make the following submissions:

6.1 Mr.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that based on findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal the learned Single Judge had confirmed the awards of the Industrial Tribunal.

6.2 The Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeals, considering the decisions of the Supreme Court had held that the workmen deserved to be granted the benefit of regularization as the vice of unfair labour practice on part of the employer was established.

6.3 Mr.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that it was not open for the Municipality to prefer a review application only because the liberty was given when in fact, the Supreme Court had confirmed the order of the Division Bench, dismissing the Special Leave Petition. Mr.Joshi, would rely on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362., to submit that the powers of review are extremely limited and under the guise of review the Court cannot be expected to reassess th