B.H. Prabhakar & Ors Vs. M.D. Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank Ltd.
EmailCivil Appeal Nos. 16699 – 16712 & 16713-16726 of 1996
WITH
Review Petition (C) Nos. 1706-1733 of 1999
(In C.A. Nos. 16699-16712 & 16713-16726 of 1996)
Civil Appeal Nos. 16699 – 16712 & 16713-16726 of 1996
WITH
Review Petition (C) Nos. 1706-1733 of 1999
(In C.A. Nos. 16699-16712 & 16713-16726 of 1996)
Review proceedings – Scope – Absorption after temporary tenure – Judgment rendered by Supreme Court holding Resolution dated 7.8.1985 not to be operative on the facts of the case – Three issues raised in Review petition – First that Resolution dated 7.8.85 was the basis for appointment of petitioners – Second the affidavit of manager legal cell, which was never pressed at the time of passing the impugned judgment. Third issue was based on anti-labour policy of the bank as per the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (JT 1990 (1) SC 343), which was again not contended at the time of passing of the impugned order – Whether any patent error of law can be said to be demonstrated in the Review proceedings. Held: no error much less any patent error of law could be demonstrated. In Review proceedings nothing can be re-argued nor any new contention be raised. Review petitions dismissed.
1. We have carefully gone through the common judgment sought to be reviewed in these petitions. In our view, no error, much less any patent error, of law could be demonstrated by the review petitioners for supporting these petitions. The resolution of 07th August 1985 was held not to be operative on the facts of the case. In the Review Petitions an attempt is made to show that resolution of 07th August 1985 was the basis of the appointment of the petitioners. That has not been accepted by the Court. An attempt to re-argue this aspect does not fall within the scope of the review proceedings. So far as the affidavit of Manager, Legal Cell dated 10th August 1996 is concerned it was never pressed in service before the Court when the impugned judgment was rendered. Hence, non-consideration thereof cannot be treated to be an error apparent on the record as tried to be suggested. Policy adopted by the Respondent-bank alleged to be anti-labour for which re-liance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Dharwad P.W.D. Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (JT 1990 (1) SC 343 = (1990) 1 SCR 544) also cannot be made subject-matter of review proceeding as no such contention was canvassed before the Court when the impugned decision was rendered. On the other hand the petitioners were absorbed as Clerks by the Re-spondent-bank after their temporary tenure ended on completion of earlier project. That may be the reason why no allegation was made about anti-labour policy of the Respondent-bank when appeals were argued before the Court. For all these reasons, the Review Petitions are dismissed on merits.
