The court emphasized that the review jurisdiction is intended to correct errors and prevent miscarriage of justice, and the term 'for any other sufficient reason' is not rigid, allowing for a broad interpretation of grounds for review.

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

These two review applications are at the instance of the appellant in the intra court appeals in W.A.Nos.885 of 2015 and 117 of 2016, filed against the order in Review Application No.305 of 2015, declining to review the order in W.P.No.2529 of 2013 and the other against the order dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.2529 of 2013 denying backwages and the prayer is to review the order in both the review application and writ petition and hear the mater afresh along with the intra court appeals in W.A.Nos.884 of 2015 and 116 of 2016.

Brief Facts:

2. The petitioner is an employee of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"). The Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner alleging various acts of misconduct and indiscipline. The Management of the Bank after conducting domestic enquiry imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner raised a dispute. The Central Government referred the industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai for adjudication. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal passed an Award, dated 30 April 2012 in I.D.No.90 of 2006, whereby and where under, the punishment awarded by the Bank was set aside. The Industrial Tribunal directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith without backwages, but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the Bank in the writ petition in W.P.No.24952 of 2012. The petitioner on his part challenged a portion of the Award with regard to denial of backwages in the writ petition in W.P.No.2529 of 2013.

3. The learned single Judge by way of a common order dated 17 October 2014 allowed the writ petition filed by the Bank in W.P.No.24952 of 2012 and dismissed the connected writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2529 of 2013.

4. The petitioner filed two Review Applications before the learned single Judge in Rev.Aplw.Nos.308 of 2015 and 305 of 2015 to review the order in W.P.No.24952 of 2012 and 2529 of 2013 respectively. The Review Applications were dismissed by the learned single Judge, by order dated 2 June 2015.

5. The petitioner filed intra court appeals in W.A.Nos.884 and 885 of 2015 and W.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2016 challenging the common order passed by the learned single Judge.

6. The Division Bench, by common judgment dated 4 February 2016 allowed the intra court appeals in W.A.No.884 of 2015 and 116 of 2016. The intra court appeals in W.A.Nos.885 of 2015 and 117 of 2016 were dismissed. The Division Bench after setting aside the common order in W.P.No.24952 of 2012 and 2529 of 2013, directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The Division Bench denied the petitioner backwages.

7. The Bank, feeling aggrieved by the judgment in W.A.Nos.884 of 2015 and 116 of 2016 filed review applications in R.A.Nos.48 and 49 of 2016. The Division Bench accepted the case of the Bank in the respective review applications and ultimately, allowed the review by order dated 17 June 2016.

8. The petitioner, thereafter, filed two review applications along with interlocutory applications for condoning the delay. The Division Bench condoned the delay and thereafter, numbered the Review Applications. The Review Applications are before us, pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.

Submissions:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Division Bench passed a common judgment allowing the writ appeals filed by the petitioner. The Bank filed review applications. The Review Applications were allowed. The petitioner was under the impression that being a common judgment, the entire matter would be at large, meaning thereby, he would be given an opportunity to argue the writ appeals filed by him on merits. According to the learned counsel, it was only when the earlier Division