The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a review application filed by a petitioner challenging the dismissal of his services. The Court held the review application was infructuous as the matter remanded to the Labour Court had been freshly considered and disposed of.
Review Application 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.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.07.2024
Pronounced on : 08.11.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE AND JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021 in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020
P.Murugesan .... Petitioner/Sole Respondent
Vs.
1.The President, National Horticultural Research & Development Foundation, Chitegaonphata Village, Darna Sangvi (Post), Niphad Taluk, Nasik District, Maharastra – 422 201.
Shifted later to The President, National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (NHRDF), Plot No.47, Pankha Road, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058.
Page 1 of 10
2.National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (NHRDF), 55, Pandiyan Nagar, Dindigul – 624 001.
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
A part of work of Dindigul Centre shifted and functioning at National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (NHRDF), 5/5, B-1B, Sakthi Vinayagar Nagar, Vellalore, Coimbatore – 641 111.
Another part of work of Dindigul Centre retained and functioning at
3.National Horticultural Research & Development Foundation (NHRDF), T.Kombai Village, Pannaipatti B.P.O., Kannivadi via, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents/Appellants
Prayer: - Review Application is filed under Order 47, Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order, dated 01.04.2021 passed in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugesan Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvan
Page 2 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.VADAMALAI, J.)
This Review Application is filed to review the order, dated 01.04.2021 passed in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020 and allow this review application.
_________Page 3 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
reported in (2011) 2 MLJ 630 (SC) (M.Sudakar vs. V.Manoharan and
Others).
apparent error or mistake in the impugned order and therefore, the review will not arise.
_________Page 4 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
28.11.2019. The respondents preferred an appeal in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter in I.D.No.100 of 2010 to the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, for fresh consideration as to whether the Director of NHRDF has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner or not. The Division Bench quoted the observation of the learned Single Judge, which is as follows:
“The Director of National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (NHRDF) who had initiated disciplinary proceedings and terminated the services of the petitioner does not have power to do so. ....… The Labour Court has committed perversity in not considering all the issues raised by the petitioner and failed to give a finding.”
On perusal of the impugned order, the Division Bench considered all the issues and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration. The review petitioner contended that his issues were not answered by the
_________Page 5 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. The review cannot be entertained as another appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction of this Court in review is in a narrow compass and can be exercised only upon an error apparent on the face of the record. On perusal of the order under review, no error is apparent on the face of the records. Therefore, the citation relied on by the petitioner reported in (2011) 2 MLJ 630 (SC) (cited supra) is not applicable to the facts of this petition.
_________Page 6 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
Thereafter, the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli. after giving sufficient opportunities to both the sides and also after hearing both, concluded that the Director of National Horticulture Research & Development Foundation (NHRDF) has no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein by its order, dated 16.11.2022. The order copy was produced for reference. The Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli has discussed all the points raised by the petitioner and answered the same. Challenging the order, the respondents have preferred the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.1916 of 2023 before this Court and the same is pending for disposal.
_________Page 7 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
this Court and the same was dismissed on 07.09.2018. Subsequently, the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli dismissed the I.D.No.100 of 2010 on 22.10.2018. Once again, the petitioner preferred the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.25060 of 2018 before this Court and the same was allowed on 28.11.2019. The respondents filed a review application in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.5 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2020. Thereafter, the respondents preferred the Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020, which was partly allowed and the matter was again remanded back to decide as to whether the Director of National Horticulture Research & Development Foundation has the power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner or not. The petitioner again preferred this present Review Petition. In the meanwhile, the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli held that the 1st respondent has no power and challenging the said order the respondent preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1916 of 2023 and the same is pending. From the above facts, it is clear that the parties to I.D.No.100 of 2010 have chosen to file the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal or Review Petition, again and again, vice versa for the past 15 years. The present petition is filed by the petitioner to review the order passed in
_________Page 8 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020, which became infructuous after passing orders by the Courts.
infructuous and also there is no error apparent on the face of the records.
(N.S.S.,J.) (P.V.M.,J.) 08.11.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No VSD To The Labour Court, Trichirappalli.
_________Page 9 of 10
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
N.SESHASAYEE, J. AND P.VADAMALAI. J.
Pre-delivery Judgment made in Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021 in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020
08.11.2024
_________Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow a review application when the underlying writ appeal resulted in a remand that has subsequently been decided by the Labour Court?
Whether the review would lie given that no error is apparent on the face of the record and the petition is an appeal in disguise?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Sudakar vs. V.Manoharan and OthersDistinguished¶45
(2011) 2 MLJ 630 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Murugesan
President, National Horticultural Research & Development Foundation
National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (NHRDF)
N.Seshasayee
P.Vadamaalai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
