The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 240 of 2016 In the matter of applications under Order-47, Rule-1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ----------- The Management of Main Dam Division, being represented by the Executive Engineer P.O./P.S.- Burla, District- Sambalpur. ……. Petitioner -Versus- Sri Seshadev Kumbhar, At- Shakti Nagar, P.W.D. Colony, P.O./P.S.- Burla, District – Sambalpur. ……. Opp. Party For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. Agasti Kanungo, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE C.R. DASH JUDGMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing: 29.03.2022: Date of Judgment: 30.03.2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C.R. Dash, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the Order/Judgment dated 16.04.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.13399 of 2012. 2 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.01 of 2011. 3. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following observation:- “In the present case, taking into consideration the oral evidence and the documentary evidence on record, learned P.O., Labour Court has come to the categorical finding that the workman was working since 1992 till the date of award under the Hirakud Dam Division. I do not find any infirmity or error apparent on the face of record in the findings of the learned Labour Court. In absence of such infirmity or error, it is not required to embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. On re- appreciation of evidence even if I take a different view, such view cannot be substituted for the one arrived at by the learned Labour Court. Taking into consideration the evidence in its entirety and the findings of the learned Labour Court, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and the writ petition for that reason must fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, but without cost in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Against the Order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner preferred Leave to Appeal before Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide SLP(C) CC No(s).2580/2016. It was disposed of on 29.02.2016 as withdrawn by passing the following order:- 3 “The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition, so as to file a review application before the High Court. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn. If the review application is filed, we are sure that the High Court will look into it.” 5. In the review petition, it is asserted that the petitioner filed an affidavit before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur stating therein that the present Opp. Party is not a workman under the present petitioner-management. He was engaged by an agency/contractor for watch and ward duty in different gauge discharge sites. The Opp. Party was not an NMR/ DLR/CLR worker of the Division. The documents/receipts/vouchers submitted by the Opp. Party are forged. It is also averred that, this Court, without considering the case in its proper perspective and on the basis of wrong assumption of fact, has passed
Decision
the impugned order in the writ petition. 6. The petitioner has relied on the documents dated 27.07.1993 vide Annexure-3 to show that the payment vide hand receipt in Annexure-3 was made to one Basisth Ojha, an agency and not the petitioner, but the petitioner has interpolated the said document having forged the same to take the benefit. 7. It is argued with all vehemence by Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned Addl. Government Advocate that, fraud vitiates everything and in the present 4 case, the Opp. Party, having practised fraud on Court by forging the documents to get the relief in his favour, it is a fit case for reviewing the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition to preserve the sanctity of law. 8. The Opp. Party has filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph-5 of the counter, it is specifically averred that the alleged document vide Annexure- 3 was never produced before the Labour Court, nor the same has any relevance to the case, because the document shown is dated 27.07.1993 and the Opp. Party is claiming regular absorption on the basis of the fact that, he was working on and before 01.04.1993. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Agasti Kanungo, learned counsel for the Opp. Party that, having regard to the provisions contained in Section- 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, the review petition as laid by the petitioner is not at all maintainable in as much as the Opp. Party has not taken any benefit on the basis of the document vide Annexure-3 to the review petition and the Opp. Party having marked eight documents as exhibits without objection by the petitioner-management, learned Labour Court has taken into consideration all the documents to return his findings regarding the absorption of the Opp. Party as an NMR worker before 01.04.1993 in the Hirakud Main Dam. 10. Before proceeding to discuss the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to discuss the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court relied on by Mr. Agasti Kanungo, learned counsel for the Opp. 5 Party in the case of Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has discussed in detail the power of review from paragraphs- 25 to 34 by relying on umpteen decisions rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various cases on the subject. Paragraphs-25 to 34 of the Judgment are reproduced below for ready reference and understanding:- “25. While considering the aforesaid question, the scope and ambit of the Court's power under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is required to be considered and for that few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to. 26. In the case of Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.), (2006) 4 SCC 78 while considering the scope and ambit of Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is observed and held in paragraph 14 to 18 as under: “14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 it was held that: “8. It is well settled that 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 CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations: 6 ‘It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct 20 all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.’ 15. A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of a judgment or an order could be sought : (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason. 7 16. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma,