UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD vs P.O. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT II & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 44/2025, CM APPLs. 3122/2025, 3123/2025 & 3124/2025 UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Pathak and Mr. Ishank Gupta, Advs. versus P.O. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT II & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 20.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. WP (C) 12272/2006 was filed by the appellant UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd challenging an award dated 10 March 2006, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID 166/1999, whereby the Respondent 2 workman was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. By the following order dated 14 March 2024, WP(C) 12272/2006 was disposed of: “It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, since the respondent No.2 has already been reinstated in terms of the directions of the Tribunal and the back wages have also been paid to him, nothing is left for further adjudication in the present petition and thus the same is LPA 44/2025 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:28.01.2025 14:51:51 rendered infructuous. In view of the above, the petition is thus dismissed as rendered infructuous.” 2. The appellant filed Review Petition 255/2024, seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 14 March 2024. The review petition, which ran into several pages, contained the following sole averment, with respect to the statement made by the appellant’s Counsel before the learned Single Judge on the basis of which the order dated 14 March 2024 came to be passed: “3. Because this Hon'ble Court wrongly interpreted the statement of the learned counsel and Passed an Order Dated : 14/03/2024 ,NOT ON MARIT but as The Writ Petition , is Thu