Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Cpwd vs All India C P W D Employees Union on 29 January, 2018
( RA NO.002/00012/2017 in O.A.No.002/00935/216) 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
R.A.No.0202/000012/2017 in
O.A.NO. 0202/00012/2017 Date of order:- 29.01.2018
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Prasanna Kumar Pradhan, Member (A).
Union of India & Ors. ...Review Applicants.
Versus
All India CPWD Employees Union & Another ....Respondents.
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J):
Present Review Application has been filed by the Union of India/ respondents in OA for review of order dated 21.3.2017 on the ground that the letter No.22/18/2015-EC-X dated 1.9.2016 could not be brought on record.
2. The present Review application has been filed by the applicants/respondents on the plea that they have not brought on record letter dated 1.19.2016. On the basis of this letter issued by the department regarding grant of MACP Scheme, they wanted to reargue the matter without considering the fact that this Court while deciding the present OA has placed reliance upon the Central Public Works Department Manual of Work Charged Establishment 2013 Edition, which is based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 25.9.2008, the extract of the same has also been reproduced in para 7 of the order. The clarification dated 1.9.2016 is vague and cannot override the provisions of Manual which was issued ( R.A.No.002/00012/2017 in O.A.NO.0202/00935/2016 ) 2 in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. Thus, we find no ground for recalling of order dated 21.3.2107. The applicants/respondents in OA failed to point out any error in the order to review the order.
3. Undisputedly Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 1908 provides that a decision or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a long process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a court of law to exercise its power of review. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'.
4. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1694 of 2006 titled The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Ors. decided on 16.6.2008 has laid down the following guidelines while allowing the Review Application :-
"(i) The power of The Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of The Act is akin/analogous to The power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22 (3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a ( R.A.No.002/00012/2017 in O.A.NO.0202/00935/2016 ) 3 coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision.
The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier."
The grounds raised in this RA are not in accordance with the scope of review as has been enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372:-
"A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out."
There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 10.8.2016. In Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455, The Apex Court has held as follows:-
"Error apparent on face of record" means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
Review Court re-appreciating entire evidence and reversing finding of Appellate Court - Review Court exceeded its jurisdiction -Order liable to be set aside."
( R.A.No.002/00012/2017 in O.A.NO.0202/00935/2016 ) 4 Further in the case of Parsion Devi & Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. JT 1997(8) SC 480, it has been held as follows:-
"An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
5. In view of above discussion, we find that there is no merit in the review application and the same is accordingly dismissed by circulation.
(PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER ( A) MEMBER (J). Dated:-29.01.2018. Kks