The High Court at Madras dismissed a review application filed to challenge a previous order that granted permanent employment to a workman/trainee. The bench held that the earlier judgment had already noted the employee was a trainee, making the current review devoid of merits.
The review petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits.
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.
2026:MHC:528
REV.APPL No. 27 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
REV.APPL No. 27 of 2025
Appellant(s)
Vs
2.R. Devakumar S/o. Radhakrishnan, No.2, Mariyamman Koil ST, Ariyur and Post, Puducherry
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section 114 of CPC, praying to review the Judgment dated 24-09-2024 in WA.No.2670/2024 passed by this Honourable Court and thus render justice.
1/4
REV.APPL No. 27 of 2025
For Applicant (s): Mr.A.L.Somayaji Senior Counsel for M/s.King and Partridge
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The present Review Petition has been instituted to review the order of this Court dated 24.09.2024 passed in WP.No.2670 of 2024.
2.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.AL.Somayaji appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner would mainly contend that the 2nd respondent/workman was engaged as a Trainee for a period of one year and therefore, the order passed by this Court granting permanent absorption under the pretext that he is a permanent employee is to be reviewed.
3.This Court has recorded the fact that the 2nd respondent/workman is a Trainee and taking note of the said fact, the final order came to be passed by this Court. Thus, the grounds raised on merits cannot be adjudicated in a review proceedings.
4.Scope of review proceedings cannot be expanded for re-adjudication on merits or to consider new grounds. Grounds for appeal cannot be considered to
2/4
REV.APPL No. 27 of 2025
review the order in exercise of the powers of review jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC. In the present case, perusal of the grounds raised on merits deserves no consideration and therefore, the present Review Petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.) 06-02-2026
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kmi
To
1.The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribuanl Cum Labour Court, Puducherry
3/4
REV.APPL No. 27 of 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN J.
kmi
REV.APPL No.27 of 2025
06-02-2026
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review of a writ judgment should be entertained when the petitioner contends the lower court wrongly converted a trainee into a permanent employee.
Whether the scope of review proceedings allows re-adjudication on merits under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Managing Director M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Personal Products Factory, Vadamangalam, Pondicherry
The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Puducherry
R. Devakumar S/o. Radhakrishnan
S. M. Subramaniam
C. Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
