TMI Blog1960 (8) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - 37 of 1959, Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1958 - - - Dated:- 3-8-1960 - K.N. WANCHOO, P. BHUVNESHWAR SINHA J.L. KAPUR, JJ. For the Petitioner : C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen, J. B. Mehta and J. B. Dadachanji For the Respondents : N. C. Chatterjee and S. S. Shukla JUDGMENT 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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] S.C.R. 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 Allisons Case ([1957] S.C.R. 359.) was made only to show that in almost similar circumstances (except that Allison s Case came to this Court on a certificate granted under Art. 133(1) (c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Assuming this to be correct, the question still is whether even after a consideration of those provisions the decision of this Court on the question of failure of justice would have been different. On a further consideration of the reasons given in the judgment under review for holding that there was no failure of justice we feel that the decision on this point would have been still the same even if the provisions referred to had been considered. In the circumstances we are of opinion that there is no ground for review of the judgment even if it be assumed that certain provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, were relevant and had not been considered. The main plan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant s application for special leave summarily on the ground that the order under appeal had done substantial justice, it is difficult to appreciate the argument that because leave has been granted this Court must always and in every case deal with the merits even though it is satisfied that ends of justice do not justify its interference in a given case. In the circumstances we are of opinion that this Court was not bound to decide the question of jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of this case when it had come to the conclusion in dealing with an appeal Under Art. 136 of the Constitution that there was no failure of justice. The review application therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Review application dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
