( 1 ) ca6660.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6660 OF 2026 IN RAST/10737/2026 BALASAHEB BAJIRAO RAUT VERSUS OM TELECOM SERVICES THROUGH KIRAN N PATIL KAGNE AND ANR 903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6661 OF 2026 IN RAST/10739/2026 BALASAHEB BAJIRAO RAUT VERSUS MS SUMIT SERVICES THROUGH ITS PARTNER KIRAN N PATIL AND ANR Mr. S.P. Dhobale, Advocate for the applicant. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 29.09.2026 PC :- CIVIL APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 01. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants. These Civil Applications are filed for condonation of delay of 83 days caused in filing review applications. Since the delay of hardly of 83 days, same stands condoned. The Civil Applications are allowed. Office to register the Review Applications. 2026:BHC-AUG:45758 ( 2 ) ca6660.26 REVIEW APPLICATIONS 01. These review applications are filed by respondent No.1 in Writ Petition Nos. 1824 of 2020 and 691 of 2020. The petitions were filed by the employers of respondent No.1. As the claims were allowed by the Labour Court and therefore the petitioner company had approached this Court. This Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the employers and thereby set aside the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court in favour of the present applicants. This Court mainly considered that the workmen failed to prove employee-employer relationship and further failed to prove entitlement to receive salary etc. 02. Learned Advocate for the applicants vehemently argued that this Court though has allowed the Writ Petitions, ought to have directed the petitioner to pay difference of salary amount to the present applicants. On repeatedly asking as to what is error apparent on the face of record, the learned Advocate for the applicants could not point out any error apparent on the face of record. He only argued that this Court ought to have directed the petitioners therein to pay difference in salary. This Court thus finds that there is no error apparent on the face of record. ( 3 ) ca6660.26 03. Considering limited review jurisdiction of this Court, no case is made out to entertain the review applications, in view of judgment in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Anr. [2025 INSC 1080]. 04. In view of the above the Review Applications stand dismissed. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Sep26/ca6660.26