IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA REVIEW APPLICATIONS MCC NO. 02 OF 2025 DELAY CONDONATION APPLNS. NO. 03 OF 2025 IN SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2025 29TH JULY, 2025 Kamal Bahadur and others …… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents WITH SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2025 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2025 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2025 Counsel for the appellants : Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned counsel through video conferencing with Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel for the review applicants Counsel for the respondents : Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the Sugar Factory The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar) 1. There is delay of 12 days in filing the aforementioned review applications, which is not seriously opposed by 1 learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the delay in filing the review applications is condoned. The delay condonation applications are allowed. 2. The instant applications are preferred praying for reviewing the order and is based on the observations of the learned Single Judge, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2041 of 2018 and other connected matters, decided on 11.02.2025, wherein in Para 6, the learned Single Judge has observed as under : “Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the impugned decision is in violation of any statutory provision, including standing orders. Even otherwise also, A Government Order cannot be tested on the touchstone of standing orders, that too before a High Court and the proper remedy would be to approach an industrial adjudicator under Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, there is no scope for interference.” 3. Today the learned counsel would attempt to canvass a case that the learned Single Judge having raised a query regarding the correctness of the executive order staying the statutory order ought not to have proceeded to dispose of the writ petitions without addressing the said issue. 4. If that be so, and the said point having not been canvassed before this Court, it is open to the applicants to 2 seek for remedy before the appropriate forum. The said case is on the merits of the order. It is seen that it is merely an observation in the interim order and neither such an issue has been raised by the petitioner nor adjudicated by the learned Single Judge. No error apparent on the face of the Order is pointed out. 5. In that view of the matter, the question of reviewing the order of the Division Bench on a non-issue or an issue that is not canvassed would not arise in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs V. Narayan Reddy, reported in (2022) 11 SCR 42. 6. Accordingly, all the review applications stand rejected. 7. This will not come in the way of the applicants seeking a remedy in accordance with law. _____________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 29TH JULY, 2025 Negi 3