2026: JHHC:9136-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 95 of 2023 Umarmadi Ansari @ Umarmadi, Workman (Welder, Blast Furnace Staff No.277162), Bokaro Steel Plant, aged about 71 years, son of Badisma Ansari, resident of Village – Bharra, P.O. and P.S. – Chas, District – Bokaro (Jharkhand) ...... Appellant/Petitioner Versus The Management of SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant through it’s Managing Director SAIL, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. – Bokaro, District – Bokaro ... Respondent/Opposite party --------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-SAIL : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate --------------- Order No. 04/ Dated: 01.04.2026 I.A. No. 10299 of 2024 in Civil Review No. 95 of 2023 This petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the review application. 2. After heating the learned counsels for the parties and being satisfied with the cause shown, the delay in filing the review application is condoned. Consequently, I.A. No. 10299 of 2024 is hereby allowed. 3. The case has been heard on merit as well. Civil Review No. 95 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only point to seek review of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 741 of 2019 arising out of judgment dated 14.08.2019 passed in W. P. (L) No. 4945 of 2010 is that the amount of compensation has been fixed at much lower side. 5. The learned counsel has referred to one document annexed with the 2026: JHHC:9136-DB 2 review petition and stated that the last drawn salary of the petitioner was Rs.16,226/- and compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for 7 years which comes to Rs. 1,68,000/- is grossly disproportionate to the last drawn salary of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer by submitting that the document which is sought to be introduced neither formed part of the proceeding before the learned labour court, nor was part of the proceeding before the writ court, nor was a part of the proceeding before the L.P.A. Court, and therefore, the petition seeking review on the basis of such document is misconceived and may not be allowed. 7. The case arose out of industrial dispute raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court with respect to date of birth of the petitioner and the core issue was as to whether the age of the petitioner on the date of entry in service on 28.07.1973 was 21 years or 28 years. The award was passed against the petitioner and was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition which was also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner filed appeal being L.P.A. No.741 of 2019 which was decided in favour of the petitioner and compensation was fixed. The compensation was fixed by the L.P.A court on the basis of the minimum wages for semi-skilled employee at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for 7 years which comes to Rs.1,68,000/- by taking into consideration fact that the petitioner had never taken a stand before this Court that he remained unemployed during the period he remained out of employment. 8. The aforesaid document which is sought to be relied upon by the 2026: JHHC:9136-DB 3 petitioner for the first time in review petition was never a part of the proceeding before the learned labour court or writ court or L.P.A. court and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in possession of the said document. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to review the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 741 of 2019 on the basis of the aforesaid document. 9. Accordingly, the present review application is rejected. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.04.2026 Uploaded On: 03.04.2026 Saurav/Mukul -