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.

Judgment :

C.R. Dash, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the Order/Judgment dated 16.04.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.13399 of 2012.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.01 of 2011.

3. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following observation:-

“In the present case, taking into consideration the oral evidence and the documentary evidence on record, learned P.O., Labour Court has come to the categorical finding that the workman was working since 1992 till the date of award under the Hirakud Dam Division. I do not find any infirmity or error apparent on the face of record in the findings of the learned Labour Court. In absence of such infirmity or error, it is not required to embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. On re- appreciation of evidence even if I take a different view, such view cannot be substituted for the one arrived at by the learned Labour Court.

Taking into consideration the evidence in its entirety and the findings of the learned Labour Court, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and the writ petition for that reason must fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, but without cost in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Against the Order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner preferred Leave to Appeal before Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide SLP(C) CC No(s).2580/2016. It was disposed of on 29.02.2016 as withdrawn by passing the following order:-

“The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition, so as to file a review application before the High Court. Permission is granted.

The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn. If the review application is filed, we are sure that the High Court will look into it.”

5. In the review petition, it is asserted that the petitioner filed an affidavit before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur stating therein that the present Opp. Party is not a workman under the present petitioner-management. He was engaged by an agency/contractor for watch and ward duty in different gauge discharge sites. The Opp. Party was not an NMR/ DLR/CLR worker of the Division. The documents/receipts/vouchers submitted by the Opp. Party are forged.

It is also averred that, this Court, without considering the case in its proper perspective and on the basis of wrong assumption of fact, has passed the impugned order in the writ petition.

6. The petitioner has relied on the documents dated 27.07.1993 vide Annexure-3 to show that the payment vide hand receipt in Annexure-3 was made to one Basisth Ojha, an agency and not the petitioner, but the petitioner has interpolated the said document having forged the same to take the benefit.

7. It is argued with all vehemence by Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned Addl. Government Advocate that, fraud vitiates everything and in the present case, the Opp. Party, having practised fraud on Court by forging the documents to get the relief in his favour, it is a fit case for reviewing the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition to preserve the sanctity of law.

8. The Opp. Party has filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph-5 of the counter, it is specifically averred that the alleged document vide Annexure- 3 was never produced before the Labour Court, nor the same