Pancham And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ

All these review petitions have been filed before this Court by the Petitioners/Appellants in the writ appeals concerned seeking for a review of the verdict passed on 17.04.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 333 of 2018 disposing of appeal in terms of verdict dated 19.02.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 98 of 2018.

The ground raised in the review petitions is that after passing the above verdict, virtually relegating the aggrieved parties to move the Industrial Court for execution of the award, the view expressed has been changed by the Bench as per the verdict dated 02.05.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 212 of 2018 and connected cases, whereby relief has been extended to the aggrieved persons. It is in such circumstances, that the verdict is sought to be reviewed and modified accordingly.

We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of review Petitioners as well as learned counsel representing the State.

The sequence of events reveals that representations of the almost 574 employees engaged under different contractors for regularization was the subject matter for consideration before the Industrial Court. The dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the said Court as per the original terms of reference dated 12.06.2000 which came to be subsequently amended. Finally, the matter was adjudicated and award was passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur on 20.02.2006, whereby the 4 th Respondent was directed to regularise the service of the workers as per the list attached and to pay all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits with effect from 12.06.2000. It was also stipulated that the workers who were already given the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme under compulsion and such others as mentioned also should be reinstated with continuity of service and that they were to be paid full back wages; out of which 50% was ordered to be given within one month and the remaining 50% within six months.

The above award was sought to be challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1659 of 2006, whereby some partial modifications were effected holding that the award of the Industrial Court would be sustained only in respect of the workers, whose membership were submitted before the Tribunal; in turn, excluding the other category of workers, who accepted voluntary retirement scheme, died or resigned etc. from the purview of regularization. In other words, writ petition was allowed partly.

The grievance arose when the benefit flowing from the award, as modified by the verdict passed by this Court, was not extended to them, in turn leading to further rounds of litigation before this Court at different points of time.

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that it is not correct or proper to relegate the beneficiaries of the award to move the Execution Court for realising the benefit. It is however conceded that the benefit sought to be extended in this regard by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 7290 of 2017 was declined to be acted upon by the learned Single Judge; which was sought to be challenged by filing an appeal before the Division Bench.

The challenge raised against the said verdict in Writ Appeal No. 98 of 2018 was not entertained and the appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 19.02.2018 affirming the verdict passed by the Learned Single Judge holding that, if the Petitioners/Appellants were aggrieved in any manner, it was open for them to pursue such other appropriate remedy before the learned Single Judge by way of review or otherwise.

It was thereafter, that similar appeals as involved the present case came up for consideration before the Bench. It was declined to be interfered and the writ appeal was disposed off in terms of the judgment passed on 19.02.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 98 of 2018.

The case set up by the review Petitioners is that, after passing the verdict in the instant appeals, some other appeals/cases were considered by the Bench and as per judgment dated 02.05.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 212 of 2018, a different course was pursued, whereby relief was decided to be extended to the aggrieved parties. Hence, the review petitions.

It is settled law that the power and scope of interference in a review matter is very limited. It is not a substitute for appeal, as made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455. There has to be an 'error apparent on the face of the record' and it cannot be a matter for re-hearing as well. On going through the verdict under challenge, it is seen that it is an agreed judgment. The opening paragraph of the verdict dated 17.04.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No. 333 of 2018 reads as follows:

"1. Shri Puneet Ruparel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that identical matter i.e. Writ Appeal No. 98/2018 arising out of the same judgement has already been disposed of, and therefore, the present appeal can also be disposed of in terms of the same order."

From the above, it is clear that, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel who appears for the review Petitioners made a submission before the Bench that the appeal could be disposed off as the matter was identical to Writ Appeal No. 98 of 2018. This submission was accepted by the Bench and accordingly, the matter was disposed off. This being the position, there is no error of the face on the record and the review petitioners are not justified in taking a 'U' turn and praying for something else.

Yet another important aspect to be noted is that, subsequent judgment passed in a case cannot be a ground for review of the verdict passed earlier.

The next contention of the review Petitioners is that there is a substantial change in the view taken already; which does not appear to be correct. It is worthwhile to quote the last paragraph of the verdict passed in Writ Appeal No. 212 of 2018, as given below :

"9. For the aforesaid reasons, while affirming the view of the learned Single Judge that the Writ Petitioners / Appellants have to take recourse to due procedure for enforcement of the Award before the competent authority, in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is hereby ordered that such Tribunal, Court or other authority which may be moved by any of the appellants or any other beneficiary of the Award dated 20/02/2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Reference No. 6/MPIR/2000 shall do the needful and conclude on any such application within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of such application. The appellants are authorized to place copies of this Order before the authorities concerned for their information."

From the above, it is explicitly clear that the course pursued earlier (that is, the remedy to be pursued by way of approaching the Execution Court) stands declared and affirmed. The only addition made therein is that, if at all any such proceeding is filed before the Execution Court, it has to be finalised within the time as mentioned therein. For this reason also, no review is possible as contended by the review Petitioners.

In the said circumstances, we find no tenable ground to review the judgment under challenge. Interference is declined and all review petitions are dismissed accordingly.

However, considering the further course of action with regard to the additional observations made by the Bench while finalising the Writ Appeal No.212 of 2018, it remains a fact that further course of action is to be pursued by the beneficiaries by way of execution proceeding. It also cannot be a matter of dispute that, if such proceedings are filed, it has to be finalised at the earliest, after taking note of the nature of litigation. If for any reason, there is any delay in finalising the matter, it is still open for the parties concerned to move this Court by way of appropriate proceedings invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India to get a direction to have the matter finalised at the earliest. This being the position, we are of the view that, by adding such a rider in proceeding will never cause any prejudice to anybody, including the Respondents herein, as it is only a matter of execution to be finalised by the Court where execution proceedings are to be filed. This would also help the Court to avoid multiplicity of litigations.

In the said circumstances, we hold that if the review Petitioners file appropriate proceedings for execution of the award before the Executing Court, the same shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing such proceedings.