The High Court dismissed a review application filed by an ex-conductor challenging his termination. The Court held that new documentary evidence could not be considered in review as it was not presented before the Labour Court, stating review is not an appeal in disguise.
The review application is dismissed. No costs.
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.Appl.No.52 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
Rev.Appl.No.52 of 2024
P.Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri – 5. ... Respondent
Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 22.12.2023 made in W.P.No.3541 of 2023 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
Page 1 of 6
Rev.Appl.No.52 of 2024
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )
This Review Application is filed to review the order of this Court dated 22.12.2023 in W.A.No.3541 of 2023.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation and was terminated orally from service on 30.12.2007. It is his further case that he had served in the respondent Corporation continuously for more than 240 days in a calender year and therefore, his verbal termination is in contravention of Sections 25-F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.136 of 2012 before the Labour Court, Salem, challenging his termination in the year 2012. Since the dispute was raised after a lapse of five years, with a finding that the dispute is not raised within time and that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he had served in the respondent Corporation for more than 240 days in a calender year, the Labour Court dismissed I.D.No.136 of 2012.
Page 2 of 6
Rev.Appl.No.52 of 2024
writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.2229 of 2019. The writ petition was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that the petitioner has not even proved that he was employed in the respondent Corporation. In the absence of any document to show that the petitioner was terminated from service when he was working, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition after holding that the petitioner, who had slept over for a long period and approached the Labour Court after five years of his termination, is not entitled to any relief. A specific finding is also rendered by the Writ Court that the petitioner’s petition is time barred and that he had not rendered continuous service for 240 days in a calender year.
Page 3 of 6
Rev.Appl.No.52 of 2024
the date of alleged termination.
5.To review the order, dated 22.12.2023, in the writ appeal in W.A.No.3541 of 2023, the above review application is filed.
6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to show us any error apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel showed before this Court a bundle of documents and submitted that the petitioner has enough documents to show that he had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calender year in the respondent Corporation. The contention of the petitioner cannot be considered in a review application, having regard to the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner has not filed any other document except the failure report and few documents to show that the petitioner was temporarily employed for a short period. Having regard to the specific finding of the Labour Court, this Court is unable to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that he had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calender year preceding his termination. As a matter of
Page 4 of 6
Rev.Appl.No.52 of 2024
fact, the Labour Court has given a finding that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that his employment or termination as stated by him. This Court, in a review application, cannot appreciate any other document which the petitioner had not produced before the Labour Court. It is not the case of petitioner that the documents were not available when he raised the dispute. It is well established that review is not an appeal in disguise. Unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate before this Court that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, there is no scope for entertaining this review application. Hence, this review is devoid of merits.
7.Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 23.08.2024
mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : Yes / No
S.S. SUNDAR, J. and K. RAJASEKAR, J.
Page 5 of 6
Rev.Appl.No.52 of 2024
mkn
To
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri – 5.
Rev.Appl.No.52 of 2024
23.08.2024
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review application is maintainable on the ground of new documents that were not placed before the Labour Court previously.
Whether a finding of the Labour Court and the lower Court regarding the lack of documentary evidence for continuous service warrants an error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the petitioner has demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the record to sustain a review.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Kumar
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
S.S. Sundar
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
