Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kakki Kaur Alias Baljinder Kaur vs Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya on 10 May, 2024
1- R.A. No. 060/54/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Review Application No.54/2023 in
Original Application No.060/1360/2022
Pronounced on:
Reserved on: 01.05.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Kakki Kaur @ Baljinder Kaur, aged about 41 years, D/o Sh. Darshan
Singh, Matron, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sector 25 (West)
Chandigarh, R/o House No. 3, Bhaini Doaba, Ludhiana. (Group D)
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Beant Singh Seemar)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of School Education
and Literacy, 124-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairperson, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Industrial Area,
Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201307.
Proforma Respondents
3. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sector 25 (West),
Chandigarh-160014.
Review Applicant/Respondent no. 3
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. This Review Application has been filed by the review applicant (respondent in O.A) under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of the order dated 17.04.2023 passed in Original Application No. 060/1360/2022.
2- R.A. No. 060/54/2023
2. It has been pleaded in review application is that the applicant was appointed as Matron through the Outsourcing Agency M/s Raj Luxmi Construction w.e.f. 11.11.2021 and worked in the school as Matron till the expiry of contract i.e 30.08.2022. During this period, the applicant got salary from M/s Raj Luxmi Construction Agency only. After the expiry of contract of M/s Raj Luxmi Construction with the Review Applicant/respondent no. 3, the applicant was engaged on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.09.2022. This Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2023, allowed the applicant to proceed on Maternity Leave subject to the outcome of the O.As. It has been stated that this Tribunal had partly allowed the O.A. of applicant ignoring the fact that the applicant being a daily wager has not fulfilled the necessary requirements of working for at least 160 days with the Review Applicant as per Maternity Benefit Act. Thereafter, the Review Applicant considered Annexure A-4 and rejected the claim of the applicant vide Order dated 02.02.2023 and the same was brought to the notice of this Tribunal by the Counsel for the respondents.
3. The review applicant (respondents in O.A.) have approached the Hon'ble High Court by filling C.W.P. No. 18998 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 29.08.2023 with liberty to the petitioner (respondents in O.A.) to file a review application before the CAT Chandigarh Bench as certain factual matrix have not been addressed in the right perspective. It has further been pleaded that the aforesaid O.A. has been allowed by this Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Female Workers, reported as 2000 (2) SCT 258 as in that case though it was held that Daily wage women workers are entitled to the 3- R.A. No. 060/54/2023 benefits of Maternity Leave, pay and allowances but the daily wagers in that case were working with the department for years and were fulfilling the essential requirement of Rule 5 (2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. However, in present case, the applicant has not fulfilled the essential requirement of Rule 5 of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as she has worked with respondent no. 3 for 124 days only and as such, she has not completed minimum 160 days immediately preceding the date of her delivery as per said Rule 5. Therefore, she was wrongly held entitled to Maternity Leave by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.04.2023.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.
5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I will now consider whether the order dated 14.04.2023 suffered from any patent mistake or an error apparent so as to warrant its review by this Tribunal.
6. The M.A No. 2024 of 2023 has been preferred praying for condonation of delay of 70 days in filing the Review Application. It has been pleaded that O.A. No. 1360/2022 was allowed by this Tribunal on 17.04.2023 and R.A. was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order sought to be reviewed as per Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Since the copy of aforesaid order dated 17.04.2023 was supplied to the counsel for the applicant on 31.05.2023 by the Registry of this Tribunal and the R.A. was required to be filed by 30.06.2023 but the Review Application could not filed within 30 days because the respondents in O.A. decided to challenge the Order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court and accordingly, C.W.P. No. 18998 of 2023 was filed by the respondents in 4- R.A. No. 060/54/2023 O.A. before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the impugned order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 25.08.2023. However, since certain factual matrix could not be addressed before this Hon'ble Court in the right perspective, therefore, the said C.W.P. was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure RA-10) with liberty to the respondents in O.A. to file a review application before the CAT Chandigarh Bench. Thus, there is delay of 70 days in filing the present R.A. There is, however, no delay from the date of order of Hon'ble High Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay of 70 days, therefore, M.A is allowed. The delay of 70 days in filing instant R.A is condoned.
7. The contention raised by the review applicant is nothing but mere reiteration of his contention raised in the O.A. and this Tribunal after noticing and considering the rival contentions of both sides, decided the issue after discussing few judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue. The Review Applicant/respondent No. 3 considered Annexure A-4 and rejected the claim of the applicant vide Order dated 02.02.2023 stating that the applicant has not fulfilled the essential requirement of Rule 5 of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as she has worked with respondent no. 3 for 124 days only and as such, she has not completed minimum 160 days immediately preceding the date of her delivery as per said Rule 5.
8. The review applicant has filed the present R.A. with a motive to get re- hearing of his contention and its adjudication, which is not the scope of the review. Learned counsel for the review applicant has failed to point out any error of facts or law apparent on the face of record. To 5- R.A. No. 060/54/2023 re-argue the contentions, which have already raised and decided in O.A., cannot be allowed in the Review Application. A review application has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
9. The review applicant has taken the plea that the applicant had worked with the respondent No. 3 on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.09.2022 to 03.01.2023 i.e. 125 days and as such she has not completed the requirement of minimum of 160 days for claiming the benefit of maternity leave as per Maternity Benefits Act. Contrary to it, respondent No. 3/review applicant himself has admitted that the applicant remained posted as Matron w.e.f. 11.11.2021 to 31.08.2022 through outsource agency i.e. M/S Raj Laxmi Construction. The aforesaid period has not been counted by the review applicant for the purpose of completion of minimum 160 days to get the benefit of maternity leave. The contention of the review applicant is misconceived and this contention has already been dealt with and adjudicated by this Tribunal in order dated 17.04.2023. The review applicant is unable to explain as to why the period from 11.11.2021 to 31.08.2022 cannot be counted for the purpose of claim of maternity leave.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008)2 SCC (L&S) 735 scanned various earlier judicial pronouncements and summarized the principle laid down therein, which reads thus:
"35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:
6- R.A. No. 060/54/2023 (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 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 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 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.
7- R.A. No. 060/54/2023
(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."
11. I am, therefore, of the view that no good ground is made out to review the order dated 14.04.2023 passed in O.A. NO.060/1360/2022. The law noticed hereinabove is squarely applicable in the present case and since no error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out or established, the present Review Application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The Review Application is dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) 'ms'