Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010248282023 2025:GAU-AS:14356 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./142/2024 THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANR NORTH EASTERN REGION, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI-21, ASSAM 2: THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN O/O THE EMPLOYMENT STATE INSURANCE CORPN NORTH EASTERN REGION BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-2 VERSUS M/S SWADESHI ACADEMY AND 5 ORS TARUN NAGAR, ABC, GUWAHATI-5, P.S. BHANGAGARH, DIST. KAMRUP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 2:KAILASH NATH EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION ARUN NAGAR ABC GUWAHATI-5 P.S. BHANGAGARH DIST. KAMRUP 3:SAMARJIT SINGH EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION ARUN NAGAR ABC GUWAHATI-5 P.S. BHANGAGARH DIST. KAMRUP 4:RAJIB BARUAH Page No.# 2/5 EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION ARUN NAGAR ABC GUWAHATI-5 P.S. BHANGAGARH DIST. KAMRUP 5:THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR NEW DELHI. 6:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR and EMPLOYMENT DEPTT DISPUR GHY- Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Smith Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. D Goswami B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. M Smith, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner. Mr. D Goswami, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. The instant review application has been filed seeking review of the order Page No.# 3/5 dated 21.06.2023 passed in WP(C)No.5494/2011 on the ground that an error apparent on the face of the record had crept in, when this Court vide the order dated 21.06.2023 held that the impugned Notification dated 06.01.2009 would apply prospectively to the petitioner’s school from the date of the said order i.e. 21.06.2023. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further elaborating submitted that in the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the Notification dated 06.01.2009 as well as the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Assistant Director, Regional Office of the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The learned counsel submitted that vide an order dated 02.11.2011, only the order dated 19.08.2011 was stayed and not the Notification dated 06.01.2009. The learned counsel submitted that the Notification dated 06.01.2009 was held to be good vide the order dated 28.01.2016 in WP(C)No.4121/2009, and a series of writ petitions by the learned Coordinate Bench and it was further observed that the said Notification dated 06.01.2009 would apply w.e.f. 28.01.2016. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, in respect to the school of the respondent No.1, the Notification dated 06.01.2009 ought to have been held as would have been applicable w.e.f. 28.01.2016 and not from 21.06.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner further submitted that the learned Division Bench has also clarified the said aspect vide the order dated 05.10.2023 in WA No.19/2022 holding inter alia that the Notification dated 06.01.2009 would apply w.e.f. 28.01.2016. 5. I have also heard Mr. D Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, who submitted that in view of the interim order being granted, the Notification dated 06.01.2009 was not applied to the respondent Page No.# 4/5 No.1 till the order being passed by this Court on 21.06.2023 and as such, the Notification dated 06.01.2009 have been rightly held to have been applicable w.e.f. 21.06.2023 and not from 28.01.2016. He, therefore, submitted that no ground for review arises for exercise of the review jurisdiction. 6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given an anxious consideration to the materials available on record. 7. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner was issued an order dated 19.08.2011 by the Assistant Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation. The respondent No.1, thereupon as the writ petitioner challenged the said order dated 19.08.2011 as well as the legality and validity of the Notification dated 06.01.2009 by filing a writ petition being WP(C)No.5494/2011. 8. This Court has perused the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench, wherein the Notification dated 06.01.2009 was not stayed. Only the order dated 19.08.2011 was stayed. The record further reveals that vide the order dated 28.01.2016, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had upheld the Notification dated 06.01.2009 and held that the said Notification would be applicable from 28.01.2016. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that this Court being a Coordinate Bench could not have held that the Notification dated 06.01.2009 would apply, insofar as, the respondent No.1 herein in question w.e.f. 21.06.2023 inasmuch as doing so would amount to violating the principles of judicial discipline. Further to that the order sought to be reviewed would result in the similar institutions being treated differently which apparently would infringe Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. Accordingly, it is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that there was an error Page No.# 5/5 apparent on the face of the record had crept in passing the order dated 21.06.2023 in WP(C)No.5494/2011 and accordingly this Court reviews the said Order dated 21.06.2023 holding, inter alia, that the Notification dated 06.01.2009 shall be applicable insofar as the respondent No.1 herein in question w.e.f. 28.01.2016. 10. The consequential effect of the above observation is that the order dated 19.08.2011 which was put to challenge by the respondent No.1 in WP(C)No.5494/2011 is rendered non est and cannot be acted upon. 11. With the above observation(s) and direction(s), the instant review petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant