ORDER

1. This is an appeal filed in person by the appellant and the following reliefs have been prayed for:IHGFEDCBA "In the above-mentioned premises as aforesaid the appeiiant/compiainant most humbly prays that this Hon'bie Commission may be pleased to:

a) Admit the instant Review Application;

b) Set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. WBSCDRC on 1st July, 2024 dismissing RA/20/2023 [Annexure- A6);

c) Direct the Ld. WBSCDRC to reconsider RA/20/2023 as per law after hearing all sides in a time-bound manner.

d) Pass such other order(s) or further orders as this Hon'bie Commission deems appropriate and right."

2. The appellant seems to have filed CC/241/2013 before the SCDRC, West Bengal alleging deficiency in service and negligence against the ESI Hospital and others. The complaint was dismissed by the order dated 10.03.2023, that has been field as annexure F-2 at page 43 of the compilation.

3. The complainant aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2023 filed review application no. RA/20/2023 and the same was admitted by the State Commission vide order dated 02.05.2023. The review application has been dismissed on 01.07.2024. It is only this order dated 01.07.2024 dismissing the review application that has been challenged in this appeal.

4. There is no challenge or any relief prayed in respect of the original order dismissing the complaint dated 10.03.2023. The complainant therefore cannot achieve indirectly by challenging the review order without challenging the main order dated 10.03.2023 and therefore we do not find this appeal to be maintainable on that count.

5. Such a procedure on similar facts was noticed by the Apex Court in the case of AIHsGhFaErDfi CDBeAvi k State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 86, paragraphs 15, 19 and 20 whereof are extracted herein under:

"15. White examining the legality of the review order, we cannot examine the legality of the main order dated 14-3- 2008 [Asharphi Devi v. State of U.P., 2008 SCC Online AH 290 : (2008) 71 ALP 614] on its merits because, as mentioned above, this appeal does not arise out of the main order. Therefore, we I -3-'IHGFEDCBA have to confine our inquiry with a view to find out whether the review order is legally sustainable or not.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants then argued the appeal as if this appeal arises out of the main order dated 14-3- 2008 [Asharphi Devi v. State of U.P., 2008 SCC Online AH 290 : (2008) 71 AIR 614]. He extensively referred to the pleadings and several documents as if we are called upon to examine the legality of the main order itself.

20. We find no merit in any of his submissions for more than one reason. First, as mentioned above, this appeal does not arise out of the main order but arises out of review order only and, therefore, we cannot examine the legality and correctness of the main order in this appeal like an appellate court. Second, we examined the matter only with a view to find out as to whether the High Court was right in dismissing the review application and thereby justified in upholding the main order dated 14-3-2008 [Asharphi Devi v. State of U.P., 2008 SCC Online AH290: (2008) 71 ALP 614] holding that it did not contain any error/mistake apparent on the face of the record."

6. Once again this principle in respect of a High Court judgment was considered by the Apex Court and it was held that an SLR would not be maintainable as it challenged only the order passed in the review petition by the High Court with no challenge to the main judgment. Paragraph 36 of the judgment in the case of Usha Bharti k State of U.P., (2014) 7 SCC 663 is extracted herein under:

”36. Having said all this, we would like to point out that in normal circumstances the present SIP would not have been entertained. Dr Rajeev Dhavan and Mr Ashok Desai had pointed out at the very initial hearing that the SLR would not be maintainable as it challenges only the judgment of the High Court rendered in review petition. The main judgment dated 5-2-2013 rendered in Usha Bh