09.01.2025 Ct. No. 30 S.L. No. 4 SM RVW 210 of 2025 With IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.

In CO 6006 of 2009 Steel Authority of India Ltd., IISCO Steel Plant Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Soumya Mazumder, sr. adv.

Mr. Bandhu Brata Bhula ……for the petitioner Mr. Bikash Ranjan Neogi Ms. Ananya Neogi Ms. Anushka Ghosh ……for the respondent no. 3

1. R.V.W 210 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025 arising out of WPA 6006 of 2009 (Steel Authority of India Limited, IISCO Steel Plant versus State of West Bengal & Ors. is taken up for hearing.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner/revisionist that the order was passed on the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner having produced an order passed in “Steel Authority of India Limited versus Workman of Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 902-903 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26634-26635 of 2019) passed on 07.02.2023,” whereby workmen of the same industry being the beneficiaries of another industrial award were granted certain financial benefits instead of regularization in service.

3. This Court disposed of the writ application in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 21.05.2025 of which review has been prayed for.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC exists in this case. The ground is covered by the phrase “error apparent on the fact of the record, or for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported at BCCI versus Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741, decided on January 10, 2005, (Paras 89, 90).

“89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.

90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words “sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine “actus curiae neminem gravabit”.”

5. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon, on being placed by the petitioner was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, wherein it was specifically recorded by the Court that the same would not be treated as precedent.

6. On the said ground, the petitioner prays for review of the said judgment and order stating that grounds for review has been clearly made out and the said order dated 21.05.2025 be reviewed in the interest of justice, there being an error apparent on the face of the record.

7. The Supreme Court in BCCI versus Netaji Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. (supra) has categorically held that a review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of new and important piece of evidence or when there exists some error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same be necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason (as in the present case). 8. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of notes of argument filed along with the judgments relied upon, it appears that in the judgment dated 21.05.2025 of which review has been prayed for, the Court on the understanding that the judgment of the Supreme Court was applicable to the writ applicants granted relief in favour of the workmen, as per the relief granted by