w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



National Union Seafarers of India v/s Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL UNION CORPN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1940PTC010240

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL UNION LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999KL1951PLC000818

    Review Petition (L) No.35 of 2012 In Writ Petition No.576 of 2012

    Decided On, 31 July 2012

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.Y. GANOO

    For the Petitioner: Avinash Joshi, A.V. Anturkar, R.N. Salgaonkar i/b. M/s. Salgaonkar & Co., Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Ms. N. Samnani i/b. M/s. Bhatt & Saldhana, R3, Sanjay Sanghavi with Ms. Jane Cox with Ms. Malanie D'Souza, R4, Dr. G.R. Sharma with D.P. Singh with D.A. Athavale, Advocates.



Judgment Text

R.Y. Ganoo, J.

By this review petition, the petitioners namely National Union of Seafarers of India are seeking recalling of order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.576 of 2012.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Anturkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that looking to the nature of the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioners ought to have been joined as party respondents. According to the petitioners the impugned order dated 29.2.2012 passed in the absence of the review petitioners has the effect of affecting the interest of the review petitioners.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Anturkar appearing on behalf of the review petitioners took us through order dated 29.2.2012 (Order under review) and pointed out as to how the order affects them. He therefore submitted that the review be allowed.

4. Learned Counsel, Mr. Singhavi appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 tried to contend that the impugned order is correctly passed and is not required to be recalled on the grounds contended by the review petitioners.

5. We have heard learned counsels on both sides. After having gone through the contents of Writ Petition No.576 of 2012 and order dated 29.2.2012 which is under review, we are inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that they were necessary party to the Writ Petition No.576 of 2012 as the order under review refers to the question relating to the applicability of the settlement dated 24.2.2012 to all workers including workers of the petitioners. The question as to whether the settlement dated 24.4.2012 applies to the workers of petitioners union could not be decided without hearing the petitioners.

6. In our view, the presence of review petitioners was necessary to decide all questions which were raised in Writ Petition No.576 of 2012, and hence the order dated 29.2.2012 is required to be recalled.

7. In view of the above, following order is passed to dispose of this review petition.

ORDER

i. The order d

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ated 29.2.2012 passed in writ petition No.576 of 2012 is recalled. ii. Office to place Writ Petition No.576 of 2012 before the appropriate bench for its consideration. iii. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R