Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Sarvesh Kumar and Others – Respondents
RVW No. 84 of 2024, CAN No. 1 of 2024, WPA No. 9428 of 2021
Decided On : 27-03-2024
Review Petition - Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1957, Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957 - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 and Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957. It highlighted the importance of the Memorandum of Settlement and the unilateral guideline issued by the Oil Company, and the implications of the cut-off date for granting additional benefits to the workmen. The court emphasized the principles of equity and fairness in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and the scope of review based on the discovery of new and important matter, mistake, or any other sufficient reason.
Fact of the Case:
The review petition arose from a judgment in a writ petition involving workmen of the Oil Company. The Oil Company sought review based on the inadvertent non-submission of vital documents during the original hearing. The workmen opposed the review, arguing that the grounds were baseless and aimed at creating a flimsy basis for the review petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Oil Company had established a sufficient cause for non-production of vital documents, leading to a serious miscarriage of justice. It held that the judgment in the original writ petition was recalled in favor of the workmen who joined the company after a specific cut-off date. The court imposed a cost on the Oil Company for the lost judicial hours.
Issues: The issues involved the review of a judgment based on the inadvertent non-submission of vital documents, the scope of review in writ jurisdiction, and the implications of the cut-off date for granting additional benefits to the workmen.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of equity and fairness, the scope of review in writ jurisdiction, and the implications of the cut-off date for granting additional benefits to the workmen. It emphasized the importance of ensuring no miscarriage of justice and rectifying mistakes to avoid unjust enrichment.
Final Decision: The judgment in the original writ petition was recalled in favor of the workmen who joined the company after a specific cut-off date. The Oil Company was imposed a cost for the lost judicial hours.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
1. This review petition arises out of the judgment dated 12.02.2024 as passed in WPA 9428 of 2021 at the instance of respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 of the said writ petition that is Indian Oil Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as ‘Oil Company’ in short) and its officials.
2. Before dealing with the facts and circumstances as involved in the instant review petition, a brief look to the decision taken by this Court while disposing WPA 9428 of 2021 is necessary.
3. While allowing the said writ petition this Court noticed the followings:
(ii) Admittedly a settlement was arrived at by and between the oil company and its Workmen Union and the clause 2.3 of the said settlement reads as under:
“Workmen who joined the service of the Corporation in regular scale of pay on or after 01.01.2017 shall also be covered by the provisions of this Settlement. However, the Fitment benefits shall not be admissible to them.”
(iii) The writ petitioners and the other workmen being Junior Engineering Assistants-IV (production) joined after 01.01.2017.
(iv) In the settlement this Court finds no cut-off date i.e. 03.10.2017 which according to the oil company is the penultimate date for getting benefit under the terms of settlement.
(v) In the guideline as issued by the oil company, however the cut-off date has been mentioned as 03.10.2017.
(vi) The said guideline has been issued by the oil company unilaterally and the same does not form part of the settlement.
(vii) Fixation of pay of the writ petitioners at Rs. 25,000/- and of the other workmen being Junior Engineering Assistants-IV (production) at Rs. 29,000/- is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India since both the categories of the workmen are discharging same nature of job.
(viii) The action of the oil company tantamounts to class legislation.
4. In the backdrop of the above judgment the Oil Company has come forward with the instant Review Application on the grounds as mentioned in the Memorandum of Review.
5. In course of his submission Mr. Mukherjee, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the review petitioner/Oil Company draws attention of this Court to the grounds taken by the Oil Company in the Review Petition vis-a-vis page 30, page 35 and page 61 being Annexure ‘A’ Annexure ‘C’ and Annexure ‘D’ respectively of the CAN 1 of 2024. It is contended by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Sr. Counsel that though in the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the Oil Company in WPA 9428 of 2021 it has been categorically mentioned that the guideline as issued by the Oil Company has been issued pursuant to the settlement arrived at by and between the Oil Company and its Workmen Union but due to inadvertence and on account of unintentional mistake by the then conducting advocate for the Oil Company, some relevant papers namely; the representation dated 02.10.2019 (a copy of which is annexed with mark ‘A’ to CAN 1 of 2024), the Memorandum of Settlement (a copy of which is annexed with mark ‘C’ to CAN 1 of 2024) and record of note of discussion on 03.10.2019 (a copy of which is marked as annexure ‘D’ to CAN 1 of 2024) could not be annexed with the said affidavit-in-opposition for which a confusion arose in the mind of the court that the guideline as issued by the Oil Company is not the outcome of the Memorandum of Settlement but it has been issued by the Oil Company unilaterally.
6. It is further argued by Mr. Mukherjee that had those three documents been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the Oil Company in WPA 9428 of 2021 this Court would have passed a different judgment. It is further argued by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Sr. Counsel that the aforementioned three documents are material and vital documents for arriving at a just decision
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of equity and fairness in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the scope of review based on the discovery of new and important matter,....
The power of review can be exercised to correct mistakes but not to substitute a view, and a bona fide mistake by an advocate can justify a review.
The power of review is limited to correcting patent errors, not re-evaluating merits; mere recommendations do not confer enforceable rights.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and does not allow for re-examination of the merits of a case.
Review of a judgment requires an error apparent on the face of the record, not merely an error revealed through extensive reasoning.
Gratuity payments under Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be denied based on benefits from a welfare fund without proper government exemption; review petitions cannot contest previously decided matters.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
The legal review process is constrained to errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used to challenge substantive issues decided in an earlier ruling.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
