JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.10.2007 on Civil Application No. 1562 of 2007, refusing to recall the earlier order dated 17.07.2006 on Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 in Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999 and disposing of that writ petition has been questioned before this Court. 2. Nobody has appeared for the appellant – Municipal Council. There is no appearance for respondent No. 1 – Union or for legal heirs of respondent No. 2 – workman. 3. Ms. Kalia, learned AGP has appeared for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. With her assistance, we have perused the records. 4. The Member, Industrial Court at Nagpur, on 05.05.1999 allowed Complaint ULP No. 595 of 1993 instituted by the workman and declared that the employer has engaged in Unfair labour practice under Articles 6 & 9 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The employer was directed to grant status and privileges of permanent employee to the workman from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.04.1993. 5. The employer – Municipal Council approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999. It appears that writ petition was admitted for final hearing and the impugned judgment delivered by the Industrial Court was also stayed on 05.08.1999. Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 was then moved by the workman who pointed out that the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court was implemented by the employer and as such the petition did not survive. The request was made in Civil Application to dispose of the writ petition. It is recorded that this position was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council and, therefore, the civil application was allowed and with the result, writ petition was disposed of. 6. The employer – Municipal Council thereafter filed MCA for review of this order. This request was considered on 11.10.2007. Delay in moving the review petition was condoned and after noticing the fact that the order dated 17.07.2006 was passed with consent of both parties, the review petition was rejected. In review petition, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council specifically pointed out that its counsel was not authorized and instructed to give consent to the Court on 17.07.2006. 7. Delay in moving the review petition was condoned and after noticing the fact that the order dated 17.07.2006 was passed with consent of both parties, the review petition was rejected. In review petition, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council specifically pointed out that its counsel was not authorized and instructed to give consent to the Court on 17.07.2006. 7. The learned Single Judge has noted resolution dated 29.10.2001 passed by the employer – Municipal Council. By that resolution, decision was taken to follow the orders of the Court and to make all payments to the workman. In the wake of this resolution, the learned Single Judge found that the consent given by the Advocate on 17.07.2006 was based upon this resolution dated 29.10.2001. The prayer for review was, therefore, rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 8. A perusal of resolution dated 29.10.2001 shows that it is passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council on a subject which has been taken up with permission of the Chair i.e. at the eleventh hour. Subject, therefore, was not included and did not form part of agenda. The subject was put up by the Chairman of the Standing Committee and the subject as mentioned is to pay dues of workman and to absorb him in service. It has been mentioned that as the workman had filed court proceedings, accordingly it was decided to pay him his dues as per court orders. It was resolved to make him permanent as per that order. 9. The learned Single Judge, while refusing to review on 11.10.2007, has observed that the Resolution was passed by the Municipal Council consciously. As the subject came up without previous notice to administration, it is apparent that developments before this Court i.e. filing of writ petition by the Municipal Council, interim orders operating therein, could not be pointed out to the Standing Committee. The resolution could have been labeled as conscious had these developments been noticed by the members of Standing Committee and thereafter they decided to implement the judgment of the Industrial Court, though it was stayed in writ petition by the High Court. That is not the situation. The members of the Standing Committee do not appear to be aware of the High Court proceedings or interim orders passed therein and, therefore, they found it necessary to implement and act as per judgment of the Industrial Court. That is not the situation. The members of the Standing Committee do not appear to be aware of the High Court proceedings or interim orders passed therein and, therefore, they found it necessary to implement and act as per judgment of the Industrial Court. We, therefore, find that the resolution cannot be labeled as a conscious resolution. On the contrary, it appears that without any previous notice to administration, the Chairman of the Standing Committee got the resolution cleared. 10. Section 301 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, deals with power to institute, defend suits, etc. Its subsection confers power to the Chief Officer to institute and prosecute any suit or to withdraw from or compromise or compound any such suit or any claim. Thus, before court, power needs to be exercised by the Chief Officer only. Section 8 of the Act which deals with Establishment and Incorporation of Councils, specifies that Municipal Council can enter into contracts and may sue or be sued through its Chief Officer. However, the power of the Chief Officer to institute suits or other proceedings or to withdraw or compromise or compound it, is to be exercised subject to general control of the Council. Section 7(a) shows that General body of the Municipal Council constitute “Council” while “Standing Committee” is a smaller part thereof. Hence, here, there is no resolution of General body (Council) compromising the claim with workman. The Standing Committee lacked powers and jurisdiction to pass such resolution. 11. In this situation, we find that the review ought to have been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we quash and set aside the order dated 11.10.2007 insofar as it rejects the prayer for review. MCA (Stamp) No. 2961 of 2007 is accordingly allowed and the order dated 17.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge on Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 and consequential order on Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999 is recalled. Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999 and Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 are restored back to file for its further consideration as per law. 12. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.