Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010209132025 2025:GAU-AS:12823 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5485/2025 THE MANAGEMENT OF MOKA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-104, GROUND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PARK, SOUTH DELHI, POLICE STATION HAUZ KHAS, P.O. ANDREWSGANJ, PIN-110049, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR, SHRI NIKHILESH MORE, SON OF MR. DEEPAK KUMAR MORE, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 157, DEEPAK ROLLER FLOUR MILLS, G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE LABOUR COMMISISONER ASSAM SHRAM BHAWAN ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 4:THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER ZONE-III Page No.# 2/3 TEZPUR SONITPUR PIN-784001. 5:THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT GUWAHATI-781001. 6:THE ASSAM CHAH KARMACHARI SANGHA TEZPUR CIRCLE PIN-784001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY. 7:THE APEEJAY TEA LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT APEEJAY HOUSE 15 PARK STREET P.S. AND P.O. PARK STREET KOLKATA- 700016 WEST BENGAL For the petitioner (s) : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 17.09.2025 Heard Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Page No.# 3/3 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that taking into account the issue involved whereby on account of a verbal submission of the counsel which was contrary to the records, the impugned award was passed, the petitioner would be well advised to approach the learned Industrial Tribunal taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 606. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition without prejudice to file the said review application. 3. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed. 4. It is observed that the closing of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner to raise such grievance in a proceedings of review, if filed and falling within the ambit as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra). JUDGE Comparing Assistant