Review petition filed against High Court judgment awarding compensation to workmen dismissed from service. Bench held that review is not a substitute for appeal and no error apparent on face of record existed for remitter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019/1ST KARTHIKA, 1941
RP.No.499 OF 2019 IN WA. 1001/2016
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dtd.25.3.2019 IN WA 1001/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA]
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
GENERAL SECRETARY, MADHYAMEKHALA THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION (HMS) CHITTADI P.O., PARATHODE, KOTTAYAM-686 512
BY ADVS.
SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RAJASREE R
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
1 THE SUPERINTENDENT, VENGATHANAM ESTATE, OORAKKANADU P.O., PARATHODE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 512
2 THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682 031
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 BY MR.E K NANDAKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2019,
THE COURT ON 23-10-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.499/2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016
:-2-:
O R D E R
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2019 N.ANIL KUMAR,J
This review petition is filed against the judgment dated 25.3.2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016. The review petitioner is the first respondent in the writ appeal. The writ appeal pertains to the dismissal of members of the review petitionerUnion, who were directed to be reinstated in service with 50% backwages by the order of the Labour Court dated 15.5.2008. The finding of the Labour Court was confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 26837/2008, by judgment dated 15.3.2016.
R.P.No.499/2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016
:-3-:
service in cases of this nature, especially after 25 years from the date of enquiry would subserve the ends of justice. The appeal was allowed to the aforesaid extent accordingly.
Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) & Ors [(2013)10 SCC 324]. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, all the workmen have not retired as stated in the judgment.
R.P.No.499/2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016
:-4-:
chance for settlement by way of mediation. However, the case was not settled. On 6.12.2018, this Court passed an order on the following terms:-
“Today, we have heard Smt.Rajasree, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union at length. During the course of hearing, it is also pointed out that the attempt of the appellant is only to cause the evidence to be re-appreciated, which is not possible in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in [(2014) 6 SCC 434] and such other binding precedents. The learned counsel submits that there was no proper compliance of Section 17B as well, which however, is sought to be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, in reply. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that all the five workmen represented by the Union have now crossed the age of superannuation and as such, the residual question is only with regard to the back wages (50%) ordered to be paid.
Post on 14.12.2018.”
Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 6.12.2018, the first respondent/appellant filed a statement on 14.12.2018 as ordered above. In the writ appeal, a reply statement was filed by the learned counsel for the respondents on 14.1.2019, upon instructions given by the review petitioner as answer to
the statement filed by the first respondent herein as per the order of this court dated 6.12.2018. On 25.3.2019, this Court
R.P.No.499/2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016
:-5-:
heard the matter on merits after affording sufficient opportunities to the review petitioner/the first respondent in the writ appeal and passed the judgment granting monetary compensation @ Rs.75,000/- each, in addition to the amount paid to each of the workmen, in accordance with the statement filed. This Court made it clear that the aforesaid payment is distinct from the gratuity and is over and above the admissible gratuity as per the rules. At the time of final argument before this Court, no contention was raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner/first respondent that the order passed by this Court on 6.12.2018 was vitiated with errors apparent on the face of record.
R.P.No.499/2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016
:-6-:
amount payable to the workman.
R.P.No.499/2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016
:-7-:
passed in W.A.No.1001/2016.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE
sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE
MBS/
R.P.No.499/2019 in W.A.No.1001/2016
:-8-:
APPENDIX
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT:
ANNEXURE 1
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A.NO.1001/2019 DATED 25/03/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be entertained merely to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment.
Whether the claim constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record under the Court Act, 1877.
General Secretary, Madhyamekhala Thottam Thozhilali Union (HMS) Chittadi
The Superintendent, Vengathanam Estate
The Labour Court, Ernakulam
A. Hariprasad
N. Anil Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
