Karnataka High Court
Employees State Insurance ... vs M/S. Tata Tea Ltd on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
REVIEW PETITION NO.1134 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
NO.10, BINNY FIELDS,
BINNYPET,
BANGALORE - 560 011.
REPRESENTED BY JOINT DIRECTOR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. TATA TEA LTD.,
NO.62, 3RD CROSS, II PHASE,
INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE - 560 094.
2. WHITE CLIFF TEA PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT A-2, BALLYGUNGE PARK TOWER,
678 BALLYGUNGE CIRCUIT ROAD,
KOLKATTA - 700 019.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. KASTHURI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI K. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
OF CPC., PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17/06/2014
PASSED IN MFA NO.4739/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to review the
order dated 17.06.2014 passed in MFA No.4739/2011.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this review petition
is as under:
Respondent No.1 establishment covered under the ESI Act.
The insurance inspector visited the respondent's establishment at
Bengaluru. The Deputy Director of petitioner sent a letter
directing the respondents to produce the records before the
insurer-inspector. Respondent No.1 replied to the said letter. The
petitioner issued a C-18 notice. The first respondent submitted a
letter before the Deputy Director in person. The petitioner has
passed an order under Section 45A of Employees State Insurance
Act, 1948. The respondent being aggrieved by the order dated
24.04.2009, filed an appeal in MFA No.4739/2011. This Court
vide order dated 17.06.2014 allowed the appeal. The petitioner
has filed this review petition challenging the said order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
learned senior counsel for respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has received a notice and entrusted the matter to the
standing counsel and filed vakalath on 30.03.2012. Thereafter,
the matter was not listed for hearing. The case was then listed for
orders regarding taking steps for the second respondent. On
17.06.2014, when the matter was listed for orders regarding
service of notice to respondent No.2, this Court held that notice to
respondent No.2 is sufficient and disposed of the main appeal on
the representation of respondent No.1 that the issue is covered
by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Without
hearing the Corporation merely placing a reliance on the decision,
the co-ordinate Bench has passed an order. Hence, it is submitted
that co-ordinate Bench without hearing the petitioner has passed
an order. Further, the petitioner has raised several other
contentions on the merits of the case. Hence, prayed to allow the
review petition.
5. Per Contra, learned senior counsel for respondent
No.1 submits that the co-ordinate Bench has passed the
judgment without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records. In order to consider the contention of the parties it's
necessary to consider Section 114 and Order 47 Rule of C.P.C
which reads as under:
"Section 114. Review
Subject as aforesaid, any person
considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which
no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed by this Code or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a
Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review
of judgment to the Court which passed the
decree or made the Order, and the Court may
make such Order thereon as it thinks fit.
Rule 1 Order XLVII of Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 "Application for review of
judgment"
(1) Any person considering himself
aggrieved,-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal
is allowed, but from which no appeal has been
preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal
is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court
of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at
the time when the decree was passed or order
made, or on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a
review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of
judgment to the Court which passed the
decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree
or order may apply for a review of judgment
notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by
some other party except where the ground of
such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he
can present to the Appellate Court the case on
which he applies for the review."
Section 114 empowers a Court to review it's order if the
conditions precedent laid down therein are satisfied. The
Substantive provision of Law does not prescribe any limitation on
the power of the Court those which are expressly provided under
Section 114 of CPC in terms whereof it is empowered to make
such orders as it thinks fit.
Under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. provided for filing an
application for review. Such an application for review would be
maintainable not only upon discovery of new and important piece
of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of
the records but also if the same is necessitated an account of
some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.
What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on
the facts and circumstances of the case. The words "sufficient
reason", in order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are wide enough to include a
misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate.
7. Now let me consider the merits of the case keeping in
the mind this cope of application for review.
8. Respondent No.1 establishment covered under ESI
Act. The insurance Inspector visited respondent No.1
establishment at Bengaluru. The officials of ESI Department sent
a letter to respondents calling upon them to produce records. In
response to letter, the respondent No.1 replied to the said letter.
Petition being not the satisfied with the reply issued a C-18
notice. An order came to be passed under Section 45A of ESI
Act, respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the Order under Section
45A preferred appeal in MFA No.4739/2011 before this Court.
This Court issued notice to respondents therein. The petitioner
appealed in the said appeal. On 17/06/2014 the said appeal was
listed for orders for taking steps for respondent No.2. This Court
passed an Order stating that service of notice on respondent No.2
is held sufficient and disposed of the appeal on the representation
made by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1. That
the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of
this Court. The Co-Ordinate Bench without hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner and without examining the case on
hand has proceeded to pass an Order under review. Thus, there
is a violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Further in disputably the Co-Ordinate Bench, merely
relying on the decision has passed Order. Thus, there is a
misconception of facts and Law. The petitioner has shown the
sufficient reason for review the Order passed in the aforesaid
appeal. Hence, on these ground the review petition is liable to be
allowed.
Accordingly, in view of the above discussion the review
petition is allowed.
The order dated 17.06.2014 passed in MFA No.4739/2011
is recalled. MFA is restored.
Registry is directed to post MFA for admission.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB/-
