1 2025:CGHC:6949-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 55 of 2025 Lafarge India Employees Shramik Sangathan (INTUC) Arasmeta, Gopal Nagar, Distt. Jangir-Champa, C.G. Through its General Secretary Prem Ram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Ramayan Prasad Sahu, Aged Around 59 Years, R/o Village and Post Sonsari, P.S. Mulmula, Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Lafarge India Private Ltd., Arasmeta Cement Plant, Gopal Nagar, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Through its Factory Manager 2 - M/s Nuvoco Vistas Corp Ltd. (Formerly Lafarge India Limited), Arasmeta Cement Plant, Post Office Gopal Nagar, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, Through its Factory Manager … Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshmader Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rohitashava Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.07 19:01:14 +0530 2 2. The present MCC has been filed for modification/recall of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.867/2024 with the following prayer:- “It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind to allow the instant application and recall/modify the order dated 20/12/2024 passed in WA No.867/2024 in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the applicant go through the uploaded order dated 20.12.2024, they came to know that the content of the impugned order has erroneously and mistakenly mixed with the order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.849/2024. He further submits that in Writ Appeal No.867/2024, the discrimination done by the management of the respondent Company and the applicant demanded that the labourers of the Arasmeta Cement Plant should be paid ex-gratia at par with the employees of the Sonadih Cement Plant and Jojobera Cement Plant, which was not provided; moreover, the workers who were working for long shall be absorbed as the regular workers, but in the impugned order, more particularly, in paragraphs-7 and 12, it has been mentioned that the appellant union workers who were not given equal wages and facilities and further the Badli employees who were not provided with the permanency status, which is the material facts of Writ Appeal No.849/2024. Hence, the same may be corrected. 3 4. In view of the above, the present MCC is allowed. In the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.867 of 2024, paragraphs 7 and 12, stand deleted and in its place, the same be read as under:- “7. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition being WPL No.139 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 05.04.2024 observing that the petitioner has failed to prove that the control, finance and management of the three plants are one and same, which is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Even otherwise, ex gratia cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner Trade Union. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, a review petition being REVP No.178 of 2024 has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner, which was also dismissed in limine in terms of Rule 90(2) of the Rules of 2007 finding no sufficient cause for review of the order under review, by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.09.2024 observing that he do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting 4 review of the order dated 05.04.2024 passed in WPL No. 139 of 2009. x x x 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned orders, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order holding that the control, finance and management of the three plants are one and same, which is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and the ex gratia cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner Trade Union. Further, the review petition filed by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that the review jurisdiction of the writ Court is very limited as neither inherent power nor an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, 5 on a plain reading of orders, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.” 5. A copy of this order be placed along with the records of Writ Appeal No.867/2024. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Yogesh