Madras High Court
P.Murugesan vs The President on 8 November, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.07.2024
Pronounced on : 08.11.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
AND
JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
in
W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020
P.Murugesan .... Petitioner/Sole Respondent
Vs.
1.The President,
National Horticultural Research &
Development Foundation,
Chitegaonphata Village,
Darna Sangvi (Post),
Niphad Taluk, Nasik District,
Maharastra – 422 201.
Shifted later to
The President,
National Horticultural Research and
Development Foundation (NHRDF),
Plot No.47, Pankha Road, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058.
_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
2.National Horticultural Research and
Development Foundation (NHRDF),
55, Pandiyan Nagar,
Dindigul – 624 001.
A part of work of Dindigul Centre shifted and
functioning at
National Horticultural Research and
Development Foundation (NHRDF),
5/5, B-1B, Sakthi Vinayagar Nagar,
Vellalore, Coimbatore – 641 111.
Another part of work of Dindigul Centre retained
and functioning at
3.National Horticultural Research &
Development Foundation (NHRDF),
T.Kombai Village, Pannaipatti B.P.O.,
Kannivadi via,
Dindigul West Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents/Appellants
Prayer:- Review Application is filed under Order 47, Rule 1 & 2 r/w
Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order, dated
01.04.2021 passed in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugesan
Party-in-person
For Respondents : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvan
_________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.40 of 2021
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.VADAMALAI, J.)
This Review Application is filed to review the order, dated
01.04.2021 passed in W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020 and allow this review
application.
2. The petitioner, party-in-person, submitted that when the
industrial dispute was pending, charge memo was issued and hence, the
petitioner raised certain points including that the Director has no power to
initiate disciplinary proceedings. Though the Writ Court as per order, dated
28.11.2019 set aside the dismissal of I.D.No.100 of 2014, Writ Appeal was
filed by the respondents and the Division Bench of this Court partly allowed
the Writ Appeal on 01.04.2021 and set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 28.11.2019 and the matter was remanded back to the Labour
Court, Tiruchirappalli for fresh consideration. In the Writ Appeal, the points
raised by the petitioner have not been considered and answered and so, the
petitioner has filed this Review Petition. The petitioner relied on the citation
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in (2011) 2 MLJ 630 (SC) (M.Sudakar vs. V.Manoharan and
Others).
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no
apparent error or mistake in the impugned order and therefore, the review
will not arise.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Review
Application. Admittedly, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition in
W.P(MD)No.25060 of 2018 challenging the order passed by the Labour
Court, Tiruchirappalli in I.D.No.100 of 2010, dated 22.10.2018, which was
filed against the dismissal of service of the petitioner by the respondents.
The petitioner mainly contended that the 1st respondent terminated the
service of the petitioner without following the procedure under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the Director of the National
Horticultural Research and Development Foundation has no power to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The said Writ Petition in W.P(MD)
No.25060 of 2018 was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order, dated
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28.11.2019. The respondents preferred an appeal in W.A(MD)No.1215 of
2020 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division
Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and
remanded the matter in I.D.No.100 of 2010 to the Labour Court,
Tiruchirappalli, for fresh consideration as to whether the Director of
NHRDF has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings as against the
petitioner or not. The Division Bench quoted the observation of the learned
Single Judge, which is as follows:
“The Director of National
Horticultural Research and Development
Foundation (NHRDF) who had initiated
disciplinary proceedings and terminated the
services of the petitioner does not have power to
do so. ....… The Labour Court has committed
perversity in not considering all the issues raised
by the petitioner and failed to give a finding.”
On perusal of the impugned order, the Division Bench considered
all the issues and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration. The
review petitioner contended that his issues were not answered by the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. The review cannot be entertained as
another appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction of this Court in review is in a
narrow compass and can be exercised only upon an error apparent on the
face of the record. On perusal of the order under review, no error is
apparent on the face of the records. Therefore, the citation relied on by the
petitioner reported in (2011) 2 MLJ 630 (SC) (cited supra) is not applicable
to the facts of this petition.
5. Moreover, on hearing both and on perusal of records, after
remand as per order passed in the Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.1215 of
2020, dated 01.04.2021, the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli took up the
matter in I.D.No.100 of 2010 for fresh consideration. When the I.D.No.100
of 2010 was pending, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in
I.A.No.4 of 2015 praying for directing the 1st respondent to pay full salary
with notional increase by 7th date of every calendar month as interim relief.
The said petition was dismissed on 28.07.2015. Being aggrieved over the
same, the petitioner preferred the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.15993 of
2015 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 04.04.2022.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thereafter, the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli. after giving sufficient
opportunities to both the sides and also after hearing both, concluded that
the Director of National Horticulture Research & Development Foundation
(NHRDF) has no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner herein by its order, dated 16.11.2022. The order copy was
produced for reference. The Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli has discussed all
the points raised by the petitioner and answered the same. Challenging the
order, the respondents have preferred the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.1916
of 2023 before this Court and the same is pending for disposal.
6. At this juncture, we are constrained to quote here the earlier
litigations of parties herein that in the same proceeding in I.D.No.100 of
2010, the petitioner preferred the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.3222 of 2018
before this Court as against the dismissal order of I.D.No.100 of 2010 on
28.03.2017. The said order, dated 28.03.2017 was quashed and remanded
back for deciding afresh as per order of the learned Single Judge, dated
27.03.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.3222 of 2018. Against which, the
respondent preferred the Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.1052 of 2018 before
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Court and the same was dismissed on 07.09.2018. Subsequently, the
Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli dismissed the I.D.No.100 of 2010 on
22.10.2018. Once again, the petitioner preferred the Writ Petition in
W.P(MD)No.25060 of 2018 before this Court and the same was allowed on
28.11.2019. The respondents filed a review application in
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.5 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2020.
Thereafter, the respondents preferred the Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.1215
of 2020, which was partly allowed and the matter was again remanded back
to decide as to whether the Director of National Horticulture Research &
Development Foundation has the power to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner or not. The petitioner again preferred this
present Review Petition. In the meanwhile, the Labour Court,
Tiruchirappalli held that the 1st respondent has no power and challenging the
said order the respondent preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1916
of 2023 and the same is pending. From the above facts, it is clear that the
parties to I.D.No.100 of 2010 have chosen to file the Writ Petition, Writ
Appeal or Review Petition, again and again, vice versa for the past 15 years.
The present petition is filed by the petitioner to review the order passed in
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1215 of 2020, which became infructuous after passing orders
by the Courts.
7. In such circumstances, this Review Application has become
infructuous and also there is no error apparent on the face of the records.
8. In the result, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
(N.S.S.,J.) (P.V.M.,J.)
08.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
VSD
To
The Labour Court,
Trichirappalli.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
AND
P.VADAMALAI. J.
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
in
08.11.2024
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
