Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs Madhan on 18 August, 2023
Rev.Appl.No.134 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Review Application No.134 of 2023
The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayat,
Karunguzhi,
Kancheepuram District. ... Applicant
-vs-
1. Madhan
2. Andal
3.Karpagam
4.Krishnaveni
5.R.Dhanasekaran
6. The Managing Director,
Rainbow Trust,
No.5/13, MolasurSalai,
Eggu Nagar Post,
Arakkonam-631 004. ... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed against the order dated 20.02.2020 made in
C.M.A.No.714 of 2020.
For Applicant : Mr.Gokul Krishnan
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For R1 to R5 : Mr.K.Arunagiri (R1 to R5)
For R6 : No appearance
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.134 of 2023
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J)
The appellant in C.M.A.No.714 of 2020 has come forward with this Application,
seeking to review the judgment dated 20.02.2020 passed by this Court in the said
appeal, on the ground that the accident in question had not occurred during the course
of employment or any work related to the contract between the applicant and sixth
respondent trust and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the
applicant and the deceased.
Brief Facts in nutshell:
2. The deceased in this case is one Mariammal, who was employed in the office
of the Review Applicant as a Sanitary Worker. On the ground that Mariammal died
during the course of employment, her legal heirs filed a case in W.C.No.428 of 2014
before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II-cum-Joint Commissioner of
Labour-II, Chennai (in short “the Authority”), seeking compensation from the Review
Applicant under Section 22(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 wherein, the
Authority had awarded a compensation of Rs.6,17,360/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from
the date of the accident till the date of deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.134 of 2023
2.1. Against the aforesaid award, the Review Applicant filed an appeal in C.M.A.
No.714 of 2020 before this Court, in which, this Court, by judgment dated 20.02.2020,
had dismissed the Appeal, observing that that the amount awarded by the Authority was
not deposited by the Review Applicant and held that the Review Applicant is entitled to
recover the compensation from the Contractor in terms of Section 12 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act under whom the deceased was employed.
2.2. Seeking to review the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the deceased
was not an employee on the date of accident, this Review Application has been filed by
the Town Panchayat.
3. It is to be noted at the outset that the Authority had rendered a finding of fact.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is a substantial question of law
involved in this case in terms of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923, the entire amount ought to have been deposited by the Review Applicant, which
has not been admittedly done.
4. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Onward Trading Company
Vs. The Union of India & Another (1985 (6) ECC 56) held that unless the entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.134 of 2023
amount disputed by the Authority is deposited before filing an Appeal, the Appeal itself
is not maintainable. Though, the said decision has been rendered in the context of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the same principle will apply in the light of Section
30(a) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. On that score, the Review Application
has got to be dismissed. Furthermore, it is now fairly well settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of review is
very minimal and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the Statute.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, in which I was one of the members, by
referring to the judgments of the Apex Court, had elaborately discussed the power of
Review in the order dated 28.03.2023 in Review Application No.19 of 2023. The
ground raised by the Review Applicant in this case, in my opinion, is beyond the scope
of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Review Applicant, in the guise of this Review Petition, wants this Court to re-write
its judgment, which is not possible under review jurisdiction. As already stated above,
review is not an appeal in disguise and as such, in this case, there is no error apparent
on the face of the record in the judgment under review and therefore, it does not warrant
any review.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.134 of 2023
For all the above reasons, we find no merits in the Review Application and the
same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Review Application stands dismissed.
No costs.
18.08.2023
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.134 of 2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
arr
Review Application No.134 of 2023
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
