ORDER

Per Subodh Abhyankar, J.

This review petition has been filed by the review petitioner / AVTEC Limited under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for review of the order passed by this Court on 27.10.2021, in Miscellaneous Petition No.2145/2020 and Miscellaneous Petition No.2357/2020, whereby the application (s) filed by the review petitioner seeking recall of an earlier order dated

18.11.2020 has been rejected.

2. Vide the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2020, the appellant was directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act), and the application filed for the recall of the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2020, which is under review in this petition. Against the order dated 27.10.2020, the petitioner herein had also preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).920/2022, before the Supreme Court, who vide its order dated 31.01.2022 has dismissed it by a one line order, i.e.,“The special leave petition is dismissed.”.

3. On the other hand, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the review petition on the ground, that firstly, it is a second review petition, which is not maintainable; and secondly, the order passed by this Court on 27.10.2021 has also merged in the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.920/2022; and as such, this review petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also, i.e., on the ground of doctrine of ‘merger’; and reviewing the earlier order passed by this Court would literally amount to review of the order passed by the Supreme Court which would be interfering in the order passed by the Supreme Court.

4. Shri Jamshed P. Cama, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, learned counsel for the review petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court; and it is submitted that before the Supreme Court, the SLP of the petitioner was dismissed by a one line order only; and it was a dismissal in limine; and as such, has no consequences.

5. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court to submit that if the SLP of the petitioner has been dismissed, without adverting to the merits of the case, the party still has a right to apply for review of the order, which was challenged in the Supreme Court. In this regard, Shri Jamshed P. Cama, learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Green View Tea & Industries vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and another reported as (2004) 4 SCC 122, wherein it is also held that the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is not limited, but in case where the Court finds it appropriate, it is the duty of the court to rectify, revise and recall its order as and when it is brought to its notice. Reliance has also been placed on the following decisions: - (1) Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. B. Balakrishnan reported as (2016) 12 SCC

12 (para 2);

(2) Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector Golaghat, Assam & another reported as (2004) 4 SCC 122 (para 14);

(3) Managing Director, North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Shivsharanappa reported as (2017) 16 SCC

540;

(4) Bharat Forge Company Limited v. A.B.

Zodge & another reported as (1996) 4 SCC

374 (para 7);

(5) John D’Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported as (2019) 18 SCC 47 (para 30);

(6) S. Nagaraj & others v. State of Karnataka &

another reported as 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595 (para 18);

(7) National Housing Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Rajasthan & others reported as (2005) 12 SCC 149;

(8) Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School For Girls & others reported as (2002) 10 SCC 293;

(9) Kunhayammed and others v. The State of Kerala & another reported as (2000) 6 SCC

359 (para 44)

(10) Haryana Urban Development Authority v.

Devi Daya