Madras High Court
Alliankothai .. Review vs The Superintending Engineer on 24 September, 2024
Bench: S.S.Sundar, Mohammed Shaffiq
Order dated 24.09.2024 in
Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023
in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24.09.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Review Application No.166 of 2023
against
Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023
--
Alliankothai .. Review Applicant
Vs.
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
West Circle, 110/11 KV,
S.S.Complex, Thirumangalam,
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
2. The Inspector of Labour,
No.33, Vengada Narayana Road,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. .. Respondents
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114
of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), filed against the judgment dated
10.01.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 on the file of this Court.
For Review Applicant : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for
M/s.K.Krishnamoorthy
For respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal for R-1
Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Spl.G.P. for R-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/9
Order dated 24.09.2024 in
Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023
in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023
ORDER
(The Order of the Court was made by S.S.Sundar, J) This Review Application is filed to review the order dated 10.01.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 on the file of this Court.
2. The Review Applicant originally filed an application before the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, for confirmation of her permanent status on the ground that she was employed as Typist in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and that she had completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months.
3. The claim of the review applicant was opposed by the respondents. However, the review applicant succeeded before the competent Authority and the Authority held that the Review Applicant is entitled for confirmation of permanent status. Aggrieved by the same, the Management, namely the respondents herein filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.27632 of 2008, and by order dated 04.08.2022, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition on 04.08.2022 with a specific finding that the review applicant herein (Alliankothai) had not produced any document as exhibit before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/9 Order dated 24.09.2024 in Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 competent Authority to show that she had worked for more than 280 days in a period of 24 calendar months.
4. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.No.27632 of 2008 on 04.08.2022, found that the impugned order of the Authority is not based on any evidence and necessary documents were not produced and therefore, the order impugned in the Writ Petition, passed by the Authority is based on no evidence.
5. The learned Single Judge further held that the writ petitioner/TNEB only engaged the service of a job typing in the institution for typing work and the review applicant was working in the institution. However, taking note of the age of the review applicant and the fact that the review applicant had done the job only for the TNEB, learned Single Judge directed the TNEB to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the review applicant by way of compensation.
6. As against the order passed in the Writ Petition, the review applicant preferred an appeal in W.A.No.21 of 2023. This Court, on 10.01.2023, in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023, confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and held that there is no evidence to show that the review applicant had rendered 480 days of continuous service in a period of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/9 Order dated 24.09.2024 in Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 24 calendar months. It was also held in the said Writ Appeal that the review applicant has not even challenged her non-employment for more than twenty years. In other words, the writ petitioner (review applicant) was not given any employment after 14.08.2003 and her non-employment was not challenged by her.
7. Since the review applicant filed a case under the said Act without challenging her non-employment for 20 years, this Court in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023, having regard to the findings on facts, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, holding that there is no evidence to show that the review applicant had rendered 480 days of service in a period of 24 calendar months to seek permanent status.
8. The Review Applicant/writ petitioner has filed the present Review Application mainly on the ground that there are some errors in drawing the factual conclusion that the review applicant had not produced any document to show that she had actually worked and rendered 480 days of service in a period of 24 calendar months.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant has referred to the findings of the Authority as well as the order passed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/9 Order dated 24.09.2024 in Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27632 of 2008 on 04.08.2022.
10. However, this Court in the Writ Appeal, was unable to justify the conclusion of the competent Authority to presume that the review applicant had actually rendered 480 days of continuous service between 1999 and 2003.
11. It is admitted that no document is produced by the review applicant herein, except the only document showing cash payment received by her on various dates. Though the cash payments do not show the number of days the review applicant had worked, the learned Senior Counsel wanted to presume that the payments were made for the work done on several days. This Court, in the Review Application, cannot grant the relief by examining or interpreting the documents.
12. It is the specific case of the respondents herein that the review applicant/writ petitioner was never employed or under the control of the respondents herein as Typist during the relevant period. It is the further case of the respondents herein that the typing work was actually undertaken by one Superfast Couriers and that the writ petitioner was only an employee of M/s.Superfast Couriers. In the absence of any relevant document, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/9 Order dated 24.09.2024 in Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 competent Authority had rendered a finding based on some guess work. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant, submitted that the judgment in the said Writ appeal, is erroneous and without looking into the documents. Moreover the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge that the review applicant has not produced any relevant document to prove her case and she had been the employee of another institution which engaged her for doing job typing, has been confirmed by giving reasons.
13. While confirming the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 found that the writ petitioner/review applicant herein, has not challenged the actual non- employment for a period of more than 20 years. This Court is unable to find any error apparent on the face of records to interfere in this review application. Further, the law is settled by Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and has also recently clarified the distinction between "error apparent on the face of the records" and "the erroneous decision".
14. In this case, the findings of the learned Single Judge, as confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 on 10.01.2023, holding that there is no record to prove the continuous employment of the review applicant in the respondents herein, and the judgment in the Writ Appeal, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/9 Order dated 24.09.2024 in Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 does not suffer from any error apparent and there are other reasons assigned by this Court while dismissing the Writ Appeal.
15. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to agree with the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant/review petitioner that the findings rendered by this Court is not based on clear facts and there is error apparent on the face of the records. It is also settled that a 'review' is not maintainable, when the alleged error has to be detected by a process of reasoning.
16. Considering the reasons given by this Court, while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27632 of 2008, this Court is unable to interfere on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of records, to interfere by this Court.
17. Hence, this Review Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.S.S.R.,J) (M.S.Q.,J) 24.09.2024 cs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7/9 Order dated 24.09.2024 in Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 To
1. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, West Circle, 110/11 KV, S.S.Complex, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
2. The Inspector of Labour, No.33, Vengada Narayana Road, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8/9 Order dated 24.09.2024 in Rev.Appln.No166 of 2023 in Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 S.S.SUNDAR, J and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J cs Review Application No.166 of 2023 against Writ Appeal No.21 of 2023 24.09.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9/9