Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an application for review of the judgment delivered by this Court, to which three of us were party, on October 29, 1959*. The ground on which review is sought is that there are mistakes and/or errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore the judgment in question should be reviewed. The petitioner contends further that the judgment under review had dealt with the matter of issue of writs by High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution and this involved a question which could only have been dealt by a bench of not less than five judges - and that is why the review application has been placed before a bench of five judges. Lastly it is contended that this Court should have decided the question of jurisdiction as various other parties had agreed to be governed by the decision in this case and that would have saved multiplicity of proceedings.

* Since reported in AIR 1960 SC 407 - Ed.

2. Before we deal with the points urged in support of the petition we should like to state what exactly has been decided by the judgment under review. The appeal in which the judgment under review was given came up before the Court on special leave granted under Art. 136 of the Constitution from a decision of the Bombay High Court in a writ petition filed there under Art. 226 against an order of the Payment of Wages Authority. The question of jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority was raised before this Court and reliance in that connection was placed on the decision in A. V. D Costa v. B. C. Patel, 1955-1 SCR 1353. It was remarked in the judgment under review that there appeared to be some force in the contention relating the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority; but this Court did not go further and decide that question on the view that as there had been no failure of justice this Court would not interfere under its powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution, particularly as the matter came before it from a decision of the Bombay High Court and not directly from the Authority. In that connection reference was made to the case of A. M. Allison v. B. L. Sen, 1957 SCR 359, in which in similar circumstances this Court had refused to decide the question of jurisdiction, because it was satisfied that there had been no failure of justice. All that therefore the judgment under review decided was that where this Court is of the view that there is no failure of justice it is not bound to interfere under its powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Reference to Allison s case, 1957 SCR 359, was made only to show that in almost similar circumstances (except that Allison s case 1957 SCR 359, came to this Court on a certificate granted under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution), this Court had refused to decide the question of jurisdiction as there was no failure of justice. The judgment under review did not deal with the powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution and nowhere laid down anything in conflict with the previous decision of this Court in Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104. Thus the narrow point decided by the judgment under review was that when dealing with an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no failure of justice, it is not bound to decide and interfere even when a question of jurisdiction of the original court or tribunal is raised in a case where the matter had been considered by a higher tribunal, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction, and the appeal to this Court is from the decision of the higher tribunal.

3. This being the decision of this Court in the judgment under review, let us see if there is any reason to review that judgment on the grounds urged in the petition. Before we consider the main ground in support of the review we should like to observe that the fact that other parties had agreed to be governed by the decision in the judgment under review can be no ground for review. Are there then such mista