Kerala High Court
The Mathrubhumi Printing And ... vs The General Secretary on 5 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
R.P No.713 of 2025 1 2025:KER:57726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 713 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN WA NO.262 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD
MATHRUBHOOMI BUILDING, K.P. KESHAVA MENON ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.V.
SHREYAMS KUMAR, PIN - 673001
BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE GENERAL SECRETARY
KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS, KESARI BUILDING,
PULIMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SHRI.A.JAYASANKAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2025, THE
COURT ON 5.8.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P No.713 of 2025 2 2025:KER:57726
ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for
short), by the appellant in W.A. No.262 of 2025, seeking review of
the judgment dated 19.05.2025, whereby the writ appeal was
dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner would argue that in
paragraph 23 of the judgment, this Court held that the Presenting
Officer is a Regional Manager and naturally, he will have sufficient
experience in conducting disciplinary proceedings. In fact, the
petitioner had pleaded in the writ petition that the Presenting
Officer has no experience in conducting the disciplinary
proceedings. In Annexure-1 deposition of the Enquiry Officer
before the 2nd respondent, there is no whisper about the
experience of the Presenting Officer. Hence, the said observation
of this Court in the appeal judgment is an error apparent on the
face of the record.
R.P No.713 of 2025 3 2025:KER:57726
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents would argue that this Court has considered all the
issues raised by the parties in detail in the appeal judgment. This
Court, after holding that whether an employee has to be permitted
to engage a legal practitioner to assist him or her in the
departmental enquiry is basically a question of fact, agreed with
the concurrent finding of the Industrial Tribunal and the learned
Single Judge that the delinquent in the instant case is prejudiced
by not permitting him to appoint a legal practitioner. The learned
counsel would further submit that the Presenting Officer in the
instant case is the head of a unit on the administrative side, and
he has sufficient experience. Hence, there is no error apparent on
the face of the record in the judgment.
5. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court
to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go
through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point
laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this
Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant
provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court
is concerned.
R.P No.713 of 2025 4 2025:KER:57726
6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:
"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."
7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
"1. 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
R.P No.713 of 2025 5 2025:KER:57726
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.
Explanation-
The fact that the decision on a question of law on which
the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in
any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment."
8. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on
setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner.
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
9. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
[(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise of
review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
R.P No.713 of 2025 6 2025:KER:57726
questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
10. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
[(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident
and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly
be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it
must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". (Underline supplied)
11. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15
SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the
face of the record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs
no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not
an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the
matter on merits.
12. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair
and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in
order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-
R.P No.713 of 2025 7 2025:KER:57726
evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
13. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State
Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex
Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held
thus:
"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of
review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions, which have already been
addressed and decided".
14. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels
Ltd. [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the
grounds for review in detail and held thus:
"Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114,
CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under
S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be
exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on
setting up by the review petitioner any of the following
grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason."
15. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC
OnLine 212] in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S.,
R.P No.713 of 2025 8 2025:KER:57726
J] after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent
on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction
is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing
of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was
erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing
an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
16. W.P.(C)No.11745 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner
challenging Ext.P7 preliminary order dated 06.03.2024 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal wherein it was held that the delinquent is a
workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and the enquiry
conducted was in violation of the principles of natural justice. In
the judgment dated 24.01.2025 in the writ petition, the learned
Single Judge concurred with the findings of the Industrial Tribunal.
In the appeal, though various contentions were raised by the
parties, this Court dismissed the same by the judgment dated
19.05.2025. While going through the judgment, we notice that
we have considered the rival contentions of the parties in the light
of various judgments of the Apex Court. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of
the appeal judgment read thus:
"23. From the judgments referred to above, conclusion is
R.P No.713 of 2025 9 2025:KER:57726
irresistible that whether an employee has to be permitted
to engage a legal practitioner to assist him or her in the
departmental enquiry is basically a question of fact to be
decided on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations
and nature of such allegations, the legal acumen of the
enquiry officer and presenting officer, etc. The purpose of
giving legal assistance to a delinquent employee is to
provide him with sufficient opportunity to put forward his
contentions without affecting his personal bias. In the
instant case, the enquiry officer appointed by the appellant
is a senior legal practitioner. The presenting officer is a
regional manager. Naturally, he will be having sufficient
experience in conducting disciplinary proceedings. In such
circumstances, we agree with the concurrent finding of the
Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge that the
delinquent in the instant case is prejudiced by not
permitting him to appoint a legal practitioner.
24. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the rival submissions made at the Bar, we find
no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge".
17. In order to claim review of the appeal judgment, the
petitioner says that the observation of this Court that the
Presenting Officer, being a Regional Manager, will be having
sufficient experience in conducting disciplinary proceedings is
against facts. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioner
R.P No.713 of 2025 10 2025:KER:57726
has produced Annexures A1 to A5 documents along with the
review petition, which were not there at the time of considering
the writ petition or at the appellate stage. From the submission
made at the Bar, we notice that the Presenting Officer appointed
by the employer is the head of a unit on the administrative side.
Hence, there is no meaning in saying that he will be having no
experience in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Even if it is
accepted for argument sake that the Presenting Officer had not
participated in conducting any disciplinary proceedings, his
experience on the administrative side cannot be brushed aside
while considering the superior and key position he is holding at
present. In such circumstances, we find no ground to hold that
there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the
impugned judgment. It appears from the nature of the contentions
raised by the petitioner that the petitioner is now trying to use the
review jurisdiction of this Court as an appeal in disguise, which is
not permissible under law.
18. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and
appreciating the materials on record, we find no sufficient reason
to say that the petitioner has made out any of the grounds
R.P No.713 of 2025 11 2025:KER:57726
provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the
CPC to review the judgment dated 19.05.2025 passed by this
Court in the writ appeal.
In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
R.P No.713 of 2025 12 2025:KER:57726
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF THE ENQUIRY
OFFICER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
7/2/2024
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN,
REGIONAL MANAGER EXAMINED BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
OFFICER AS MW-1
Annexure A-3 TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF SRI. SREEJITH S,
JOURNALIST TRAINEE, EXAMINED AS MW-2 IN THE
ENQUIRY
Annexure A-4 TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF SRI. KRISHNA
KUMAR, NEWS EDITOR, EXAMINED AS MW-3 BEFORE
THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
Annexure A-5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
DATED 4/4/2015
