A review petition challenging an order allowing a writ petition for implementation of an Industrial Dispute Award was dismissed. The Single Judge held that the review application was not an appeal in disguise and lacked an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Review Application stands dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021 in W.P.No.2050 of 2015
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheyyar circle, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
... Petitioner
-vs-
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 Read with Section 114 of CPC against order dated 29.06.2021 made in W.P.No.2050 of 2015 passed by this Court.
O R D E R
The present review petition has been filed to review the order of this
Court dated 29.06.2021 in W.P.No.2050 of 2015.
1/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
in W.P.No.2050 of 2015 for a direction to the Respondents 2 and 3 to take necessary steps to implement the Award dated 24.01.2012 made in I.D.No.90 of 2011. After hearing the parties, this Court, while allowing the Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner, had passed a detailed order, which is extracted hereunder:
“3. A reading of the representation dated 16.06.2014 made by the Petitioner is very clear that the petitioner wanted the Award to be implemented, as the Management had not complied with the Award. It is to be noted that in case of non~implementation of the Award, it is open to the petitioner to initiate criminal prosecution against persons falling under Section 32 of the I.D.Act, 1947 the officers concerned, who are liable to implement the Award. If any complaint under Section 29 is made by the petitioner, criminal action should be taken against the officers, who are responsible for implementing the order, and the Government will have to sanction prosecution against those persons to bring the issue into logical end. The Government shall also take into account the principles laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Gupta vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi reported in 1997 (1) LLJ 994. This Court wants to point out that when the petitioner seeks for implementation of the Award, it is open to him to seek the claim under Section 33C(1) read with Section 11 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the admitted amount can be determined in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fabril Gasosa vs. Labour Commissioner, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 150 and in case of disputed amount, the disputed portion can be adjudicated and computed by the appropriate Labour Court, when an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is filed.
2/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
Application, submitted that the Society has now become dormant and that the 1st Respondent herein has committed serious irregularities and misappropriated the amount, which had resulted in registration of a criminal case in C.C.Nos.44 to 47 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.
implement the Award dated 24.01.2012 in I.D.No.90 of 2011 passed by 3/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
the Labour Court, Vellore. As long as there is no stay of the Award, the
order of this Court in Paragraph Nos.3 to 5 (supra) needs to be implemented in letter and spirit. The pendency of the criminal case is nothing to do with the implementation of the Award of the Labour Court and the criminal case that is pending in C.C.Nos.44 to 47 of 2014 can also simultaneously go along with the prosecution that may be sanctioned by the Government against the Officials of the respondents for nonimplementation of the Award. It is saddening that the award was passed as early as on 24.01.2012 and more than 10 years have elapsed from the date of award. Despite the subsequent order of this Court in 2021, there was no steps taken to comply with the order till now.
4/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
Hon'ble Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of review
is very minimal and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the statute. It would be relevant to refer to few Judgments of this Hon'ble Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court to understand and appreciate the scope of review jurisdiction to find out if the petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the order dated 01.09.2021 in W.A.No.2133 of 2021. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Karaikudi, Sivagangai District Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and Others [Review Application (MD). No.82 of 2013] decided on 04.02.2015, held as follows:
“10... It is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. The review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for re-hearing on merits.”
Madras 512 , it was opined that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted below:
"11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is well settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not on erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it
5/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The said power cannot be exercised as is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review application also cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". Similarly, the error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error, which must strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points, where there may conceivably be two opinions.”
Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018 , one of us (SVNJ) elaborately discussed the scope of
review and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows:
“7.The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for
6/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 , while
considering the scope of the power of review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows:
"The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226."
(8) SCC 715 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"Under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its
7/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
power of review under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
discerned that:
1.Review is not an appeal in disguise.
2.The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C.
3.A wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the law and failure to apply the correct law cannot be a ground for review.
4.The power to review is a restricted power given through a Court to go through the Judgment only to correct it or improve it, on the basis of some material which ought to have been considered, escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason, but not to substitute a fresh or a second Judgment.
5.The power of review cannot be invoked to correct the erroneous Judgment and the finality attached to a Judgment cannot be disturbed.
6.Only errors which are apparent on the face of the record in the sense that errors which strike on mere looking at record can only be corrected and not those that require long drawn process of reasoning on point.
8/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
to review rests. The said principles are not exhaustive but only illustrative.
three basic requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are as under:
(i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge (or) could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed (or) order made;
(ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review; and
(iii) or any other sufficient reasons.”
beyond the scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. The Review Applicants in the guise of the Review Petition want this Bench to re-write it's Judgment, which is not possible under review jurisdiction . As already stated above review is not an appeal in disguise and there is no error apparent on the fact of the record. Therefore, the Division Bench rightly confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any review. For all the above reasons, we find no merits in the review application and the same deserves to be dismissed.
9/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
costs.
06.02.2023
Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssn
To:
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
10/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J., ssn
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.2050 of 2015 1/2
11/12
Rev.Application No.165 of 2021
06.02.2023
12/12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the limitations on the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC bar the review of an order where the petitioner merely requests the court to re-write its judgment.
Whether the failure of the Management to implement an Award constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.Referred¶44
The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Karaikudi, Sivagangai District Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and Others [R
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.ShajahanReferred¶46
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others, AIR 2004 Madras 512 · Who else cites this
R.Mohala Vs. M.SivaExplained¶53
R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others, Review Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryRelied on¶62
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 · Who else cites this
Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri DeviRelied on¶66
Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, 1997 (8) SCC 715 · Who else cites this
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheyyar circle
D.Nagarajan
The Secretary to Government Labour and Employment Department
The Labour Officer, No.55/1, Gandhi Nagar
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
