Bombay High Court
Cfl Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Rep. By Its ... vs Workmen, Rep. By The General Secretary ... on 2 August, 2024
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
Meena
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL REVISION (REVIEW) NO.10 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2019
M/s. CFL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. .....Applicant
Nirankal Road, Curti, Ponda- Goa,
represented herein by its Authorised
Signatory, Mr. Uday Deshpande,
having office at 5th Floor, Dempo
Tower, Patto Plaza, Panaji- Goa 403
001.
Versus
Workmen
Rep. By the General Secretary of
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, Shetye .....Respondent
Sankul, 3rd Floor, Tisk, Ponda Goa.
Mr. G.K. Sardessai with Ms. Smrati Bangera, Advocates for the
Applicant.
Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar with Mr. Prabhav Pravin Sirvoicar, Advocates
for the Respondent.
CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
RESERVED ON: 24th July,2024.
PRONOUNCED ON: 2nd August, 2024.
O R D E R:
1. Heard Mr. G.K. Sardessai with Ms. Smrati Bangera, learned
Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar with Mr.
Prabhav Pravin Sirvoicar, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
2. The present proceedings are filed with a prayer to review
order passed by this Court on 29/01/2019 in Writ Petition No.132
of 2019 basically on the ground that there is error apparent on the
face of record and that the material aspects have not been
considered properly. It is also claimed that the impugned order is
contrary to judgment in the case of Gurunath Mahashetty and
ors v/s. Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd. [Writ Petition
No.13395 of 2016] and Man Singh v/s. Maruti Suzuki India
Ltd and anr. [2011 (III) CLR 390].
3. Mr. Sardessai would submit that review is required on
equitable principles since some judgments are not properly
considered while disposing of the petition. He submits that this
Court while deciding the Writ Petition considered the judgment in
the case of Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd. V/s. Kuyesh
Durjan Yadav[2016(1) Mh.L.J. 822] as guidelines but according
to him the same cannot be considered as directions.
4. Mr. Sardessai submits that the settlement effected between
the parties was towards full and final settlement of the dues and
therefore reference made thereafter was not at all maintainable.
He submits that two decisions of the Apex Court were not
considered. He would submit that there was no question of
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal as the matter was
considered as settled on the basis of settlement terms and thus
there is error on the face of record which needs to be reviewed.
5. Mr. Gaonkar, on the contrary, claimed that there is no error
apparent on the face of record and subsequent judgment of the
Courts cannot be considered as a ground for review. The dispute
before the Tribunal was in fact not with regard to the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme extended to the workmen but it was regarding
closure notice which amounts to retrenchment. He submits that
the settlement was with regard to the monetary benefits and the
contention that before considering the dispute, the workmen or
the Union is required to refund all the benefits received, cannot be
considered as mandatory. He submits the power to grant such
relief is discretionary and on the principles of equity which has
been exercised by this Court and therefore no case is made out for
grant of review.
6. Writ Petition No.144 of 2019 was filed by the workmen
represented by their General Secretary /Respondent herein
thereby challenging the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
dated 05/12/2018 on an application filed by the
employer/Applicant at Exh.63. The learned Tribunal partly
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
allowed such application and directed the workmen to deposit the
entire amount received by them towards the settlement, within 45
days and the dispute/reference shall be treated as annulled in
respect of those workmen who failed to deposit such amount.
7. While deciding such petition, this Court (Kum. Nutan D.
Sardessai,J) considered the decision in the case of Saint Gobain
Sekurit India Ltd.(supra) and allowed the said petition by
quashing and setting aside the directions of Industrial Tribunal
about deposit of entire benefit within 45 days and directing the
Tribunal to consider the reference on its own merits.
8. The decision in Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd.(supra)
delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 08/12/2015
by considering the Apex Court's decisions including Man
Singh(supra), Ramesh Chandra Sankla and ors v/s.
Vikram Cement and Ors [(2008) 14 SCC 58] etc. and
thereafter observing that the power to direct pre- deposit exists,
cannot be doubted. However, from the existence of such power, an
sequator does not automatically follow that it is a mandatory
precondition. It is permissible in certain given circumstances to
consider whether such directions could be issued or not. It
depends upon facts of each case.
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
9. Mr. Sardessai while placing reliance in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla (supra) would submit that a workmen cannot
be allowed to reagitate and claim benefits after receiving the
amount towards full and final settlement unless such amount is
deposited with the concerned Court with interest. The decision of
Ramesh Chandra Sankla(supra) is admittedly considered in
the case of Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd.(supra) wherein
this Court has already discussed that such aspect will have to be
decided on case to case basis and it cannot be considered as a
precondition for the purpose of entertaining any reference.
10. Man Singh(supra) was also considered in the case of Saint
Gobain Sekurit India Ltd.(supra) which is clear from
paragraph No.12 and accordingly it has been interpreted that
observations of the Apex Court in both these matters cannot be
considered as mandatory provision directing pre-deposit before
entertaining any reference challenging such settlement.
11. In the case of Gurunath (supra) the learned Single Judge
of this Court while dealing with the similar issue also considered
the case of Mansingh, Rameshchandra along with Arun
Dattatraya Gore v/s. Manu Graph Industries Ltd.[WP
No.129 of 2012], observed in paragraph 15 that the directions to
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
repay the amounts received by the workmen to the company is not
justified at the interim stage.
12. In the case of Depot Manager Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation v/s. M. Maruthi [(2020) 14
SCC 619], the Apex Court was considering the aspect of review,
wherein it was observed that when attention of the Court was
drawn to the facts that the case on hand and the distinguishing
facts in both the cases, the Court ought to have reviewed and
recalled its order. However, this decision will not help the
Petitioner/Applicant since the decisions which are now cited by
Mr. Sardessai were not placed before this Court while passing
order which he is sought to be reviewed in the present
proceedings.
13. In the case of Phulabai Prakash Pawar v/s. SKF India
Limited & Anr [2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10721] which is
delivered in the year 2016 is now sought to relied upon. However,
the matter clearly shows that such judgment was not referred to
while deciding the present petition. Similarly the case with regard
to Babubhai Ramjibhai Dabhi v/s. Truetzschler India
Private Limited [Special Civil Application No.17459 of 2022]
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
which is a recent judgment of Gujarat High Court decided on
29/03/2023.
14. In case of Dokka Samuel v/s. Dr. Jacob Lazarus
Chelly [(1997) 4 SCC 478], the Apex Court observed that
omission to cite authority of law is not a ground for reviewing
prior judgment by saying that there is an error apparent on the
face of record, since the Counsel has committed an error in not
bringing to the notice of the Court the relevant precedents.
15. While disposing of the petition on 29/01/2019, this Court
basically relied upon observations in the case of Gobain Sekurit
India Ltd. (supra) and also the fact that the workmen who
challenged the VRS after few years, cannot be asked to deposit
entire benefits for entertaining such reference since such amount
was received by them as a closure compensation and that only the
benefits of the VRS was extended. Similarly this Court observed
that the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal in the year
2007 while application was filed by the Applicant seeking deposit
of the so called VRS compensation only in the year 2018 i.e. after a
period of more than 11 years. Thus, it was further observed that
some of the workmen had retired and attained the age more than
70years and that most of them have spent consideration amount
CAREV-10-2019.DOC
towards their family expenditure, it would not be possible for
them to return such benefits as a precondition for entertaining
their reference.
16. From the above observations, the contentions raised on
behalf of the Applicant and that too by way of review, are of no
substance. The contentions raised cannot be looked into in
Review Petition and thus application deserves to be rejected and
accordingly stands rejected.
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
