Judgment : This application is filed for review of order dated 15-2-2010 in M.A.M.C.A.No.2379/2006. Respondent No.4 in the above mentioned M.A.C.M.A. is the petitioner. It is stated in the review petition that this Court disposed of the said M.A.C.M.A. on 15-2-2010 by enhancing compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and confirmed the order of the Tribunal in all other respects and that as such no relief was granted against the review petitioner. At the hearing, Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the review petitioner, stated that the only ground on which the review petition is filed is that this Court, in the order under review, has marked his absence, while disposing of the M.A.C.M.A. He submitted that as a section of the Advocates has given a call for boycott of the Courts, he was prevented from attending the Courts on 15-2-2010 and consequently he was not present in the Court when the case was heard and disposed of. According to him, this Court ought to have adjourned the case to another date instead of disposing of the same. He therefore sought for review of the order by deleting the part of the order whereby his absence is marked. I am afraid, this request of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. On his own showing, his name as the counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in the M.A.C.M.A., has been very much shown in the cause-list on 15-2-2010. The Counsel who filed his personal affidavit has not disclosed the names of the persons who allegedly prevented him from attending the Courts on the said date. It is also not his case that he sought the help of the Management of the High Court to prevent the agitators from obstructing him from attending the Court. Time and again, Courts held that boycott of the Courts is unconstitutional and does not behoove the noble profession they belong to. This Court cannot therefore recognize such calls of boycott by the Advocates. In Ex Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Unioin of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 ), the Supreme Court held as under : Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. This Court cannot therefore recognize such calls of boycott by the Advocates. In Ex Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Unioin of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 ), the Supreme Court held as under : Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour armbands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc., outside the Court. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott and no lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the association or the council; There shall be no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion of the advocate. No Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. In rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. In such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before advocates decide to absent themselves from court, whose decision shall be final to be abide by the Bar. Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike and it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. If a lawyer, holding a vakalat of a client, abstains from attending court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay his client for loss suffered by him. (emphasis added) In Ramon Services Private Limited Vs. Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. If a lawyer, holding a vakalat of a client, abstains from attending court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay his client for loss suffered by him. (emphasis added) In Ramon Services Private Limited Vs. Subhash Kapoor ( (2001) 1 SCC 118 ), theSupreme Court held: “….When the advocate who was engaged by a party was on strike there is no obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that count….” I do not intend to burden this Order by multiplying the case law. It will suffice to observe that the premise on which the Counsel filed his affidavit and advanced his submissions is antithesis to the settled legal position and is wholly incomprehensible. Furthermore, the sole purpose for which the review petition is filed viz., to get the marking of his absence expunged from the order, is wholly ununderstandable. As admitted by the learned Counsel in his affidavit, no order adverse to the interests of his client-respondent No.4 in the M.A.C.M.A. was passed. Hence, the review petition filed in the name of the said party is wholly misconceived. If the Counsel feels that his professional interests are likely to be affected due to his failure to represent respondent No.4, it is for him to try to convince the former on the reasons for his failure to appear in the Court. By no means, the Counsel can maintain the review petition for espousing his personal cause, which is either legally or factually non-existent. For the above mentioned reasons, the review petition is dismissed.