2003 Supreme(All) 699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. N. Srivastava, J.
U. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 32939 Of 1992
Decided On : 04/02/2003
RADHEY SHYAM, TARUN AGARWAL
The court has the power to review a judgment if it was induced by ignorance of vital and material facts.
Headnote:
Review - Seniority of Employees - Rules 5, 17, 18 - The court reviewed the judgment and modified it to provide the unsuccessful candidates with a fresh opportunity for promotion in accordance with the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The court reviewed a judgment regarding the seniority of employees and modified it to provide unsuccessful candidates with a fresh opportunity for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier judgment was induced by ignorance of vital and material facts, and therefore, allowed the review application.
Issues: The main issue was the seniority of employees and their entitlement to promotion in accordance with the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the judgment was based on a fallacious assumption due to ignorance of certain vital and material facts, and therefore, allowed the review application.
Final Decision: The review application was allowed, and the judgment was modified to provide the unsuccessful candidates with a fresh opportunity for promotion in accordance with the rules.
( 1 ) THIS application has been preferred for review of the judgment dated 8. 4. 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32939 of 1992. U. P. State electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow and Ors. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, u. P. Allahabad and Ors. , in which subject-matter of impungment was the award of the Tribunal dated 4th February, 1992 rendered on parity of the reasoning given in the judgment of the Court (DB) passed in Writ Petition No. 6858 of 1985. Learned single Judge while disposing of the Writ petition No. 32939 of 1992 modulated the Tribunals order dated 4. 2. 1992 and the order in so far as it bears relevance to the matter at issue in the review application is excepted below:
"sri Tarun Agarwal has then contended that list of successful candidates for the year 1977 and 1979 may be declared in near future. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been promoted from the dates indicated in the order of the Tribunal to comply with the order of the Tribunal but they cannot claim seniority from that very date. He submits that the order of the Tribunal be modified to the extent that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall be entitled to seniority in accordance with the merit list as may be declared in near future. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 further submits that the petitioners were claiming appointment/promotion since 1977 and 1979 and they are entitled to seniority from the dates on which they could have been appointed. As already observed above, the Tribunal has directed that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall be deemed to have been appointed from the subsequent date, i. e. , a date on which two months period from the date of publication of award ends. The final list of successful candidates for the years 1977 and 1979 is yet to come. There may be candidates who may find positions higher to the petitioners in the merit list for the years 1977-79. At this stage in the absence of those who may be placed higher in the merit list, the petitioners cannot be given seniority from the date of the appointment/promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. In the interest of justice, therefore; it would be expedient to modify the order of the Tribunal to the effect of seniority of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other promotees shall be decided in future in accordance with the merit list. However, it is made clear that in case the names of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 do not find place in merit list for the years 1977-79, they shall not be reverted and they will continue to work as Junior Engineers on the post on which they have been working and will continue to get all the benefits they are getting. . . . . . . . "
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner began his submission stating that the parties had agreed that irrespective of the fact that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not arrayed as parties in the Writ petition No. 6858 of 1985 decided on 19th August, 1989, the judgment extended its coverage to the respondents as well. This fact is borne out from para 6 of the judgment of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal has recorded a finding that Vlnod Kumar Tiwari and Santosh Kumar Gupta, respondents had in no inarticulate terms stated that order passed in the said writ petition would operate for application to their case as well. He further submitted that the judgment of this Court was pronounced on the solitary ground that the petitioners counsel could not apprise the Court that judgment dated 29. 8. 1989 had not been observed in compliance, though the fact remained that the order had been fully complied with and fresh list of successful candidates was prepared and published on 3rd March, 1997, as a consequence of the directions embodied in the judgment of the Lucknow Bench dated 29th August, 1989, passed in Writ Petition No. 6858 of 1985 and other connected writ petitions in 1991 UPLBEC 314, the explanatory plea in vindication of this submission was