Madhya Pradesh High Court

Senior Divisional Manager Life ... vs Shri Manish Kumar Halwai on 11 July, 2022

Author: Maninder S Bhatti

                                                            1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
                                                     ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022

                                              REVIEW PETITION No. 194 of 2020

                                      Between:-
                                      SENIOR    DIVISIONAL  MANAGER,   LIFE
                                      INSURANCE    CORPORATION  OF   INDIA,
                                      DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KRISHNA COMPLEX,
                                      KRISHNA NAGAR, SATNA DIST. SATNA
                                      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                      (BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE)

                                      AND

                                      SHRI MANISH KUMAR HALWAI S/O SHRI
                                      ARJUN PRASAD HALWAI , AGED ABOUT 37
                                      YEAR S , IN FRONT OF HUKUMCHAND DISC
                                      WALE SHYAMLAL KA BADA BAJRAHA TOLA
                                      SATNA DIST. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE )

REVIEW PETITION No. 188 of 2020

Between:-

                                      SENIOR    DIVISIONAL  MANAGER   LIFE
                                      INSURANCE    CORPORATION  OF  INDIA

DIVISIONAL OFFICE KRISHNA COMPLEX KRISHNA NAGAR SATNA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE )

AND

SHRI INDRASHARAN SHARMA S/O SHRI Signature Not Verified SAN

SURESH PRASAD SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 42 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.14 13:47:15 IST Y E A R S , SAIMIRI THAKUR TOLA POST BHATANWARA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA

PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

REVIEW PETITION No. 191 of 2020

Between:-

                                      SENIOR    DIVISIONAL  MANAGER     LIFE
                                      INSURANCE    CORPORATION   OF   INDIA

DIVISIONAL OFFICE KRISHNA COMPLEX KRISHNA NAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE)

AND

SHRI RAM KUSHAL DAHIYA S/O SHRI RAMADHAR DAHIYA , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NEAR KAMLESH FLOR MIL GALI NO.8 NAI BASTI TIKURIYA TOLLA SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

REVIEW PETITION No. 192 of 2020

Between:-

                                      SENIOR    DIVISIONAL  MANAGER     LIFE
                                      INSURANCE    CORPORATION   OF   INDIA

DIVISIONAL OFFICE KRISHNA COMPLEX KRISHNA NAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE)

AND

SHRI KAMLA LAKHERA S/O SHRI URMILA PRASAD LAKHERA , AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DALIBABA CHOWRAHA KOLAN MOHALLA Signature Not Verified SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) SAN

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER .....RESPONDENT Date: 2022.07.14 13:47:15 IST

(BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

REVIEW PETITION No. 196 of 2020

Between:-

SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIN OF INDIA R/O DIVISIONAL OFFICE KRISHNA COMPLEX KRISHNA NAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE)

AND

SHRI RAM NARESH SINGRAHA S/O SHRI DUKHILAL SINGRAHA , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, GRAM POST SHKRIYA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

REVIEW PETITION No. 197 of 2020

Between:-

SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA R/O DIVISIONAL OFFICE KRISHNA COMPLEX KRISHNA NAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE)

AND

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI RAMNATH SONI , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R.K. POWER KI GALI DALI BADA CHOWK SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the Signature Not Verified

following:

SAN

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.14 13:47:15 IST ORDER

This order shall govern disposal of the above review petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Review Petition No.194/2020.

This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 30.10.2018, passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.13314/2015. The coordinate bench, while dealing with the petitions filed at the instance of the employer as well as employees, decided the controversy by passing a common order.

The coordinate bench, while modifying the order of the labour Court, held that employees deserves to be reinstated and therefore, the payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement ought not to have been allowed by the labour Court, therefore, decided the issue accordingly while dealing with the petitions at the instance of employees.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an error apparent on the face of record in as much as the coordinate bench in the first paragraph of the order, held that the labour Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that all the petitioners/employees have completed more than 240 days in a preceding year. According to the counsel for the petitioner, this is an error apparent on the face of record. Thus, by taking this Court to para 13 submitted that there was no finding by the labour Court as regard the employees having worked for more than 240 days in a preceding year and thus submitted that since the aforesaid apparent error has resulted in miscarriage of justice, the order passed in the original writ petition

Signature Not Verified SAN deserves to be recalled.

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Date: 2022.07.14 13:47:15 IST

workmen/employee categorically discharged his burden as regard the fact that

he has worked for 240 days in the preceding year and this fact finds mention in para 11 of the labour Court order and therefore submits that no ground for review is made out.

Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Before dealing with the controversy, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of paragraph 11 of the award of the labour Court.

"11. Though management's witness says that he has stated in his affidavit as per record that workman not completed 240 days continuous service, which record is referred is not disclosed neither those documents are produced by IInd party. It is sufficient to hold that evidence of workman corroborated by documentary evidence deserves to be accepted. Workman has discharged his burden that he was continuously working more than 240 days, his services are terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation, provisions of Section 25-F was not complied while terminating his services therefore termination of service of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative"

A perusal of the aforesaid shows that labour Court arrived at a categorical finding to the effect that workmen has discharged his burden that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days and despite this, his services were terminated without issuing notice, nor he was paid any retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, there is no error apparent on the face of record.

The Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors.reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715 has held that error should be apparent on the face of record and it should not be of a nature which is to be Signature Not Verified SAN found out upon long process of scrutiny. The Apex Court in paragraph 9 in the Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.14 13:47:15 IST case of has held as under:

"ÂœUnder 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 "Âœreheard and corrected"Â. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "Âœan appeal in disguise".

Thus, since the petitioner has failed to establish that there is an error apparent on the face of record, this Court find no merit in the review petition. Hence the same stands dismissed.

(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE Jasleen/Shub

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM THAKKER Date: 2022.07.14 13:47:15 IST