Review cannot be used to reargue a decision absent an error apparent on the record.

The review petitioner sought recall or modification of the High Court’s judgment in WPL No. 34 of 2021, dated 2 July 2026.

It contended that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had affirmed the dismissal of respondent No. 3 and that this warranted review of the writ judgment.

The Court considered the review petition and the record.

1. Whether the CGIT’s affirmation of respondent No. 3’s dismissal provided a ground to recall or modify the judgment in WPL No. 34 of 2021

2. Whether the review petitioner established an error apparent on the face of the record or another permissible ground for review

Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits review, among other grounds, for an error apparent on the face of the record; an error requiring a process of reasoning is not apparent, and review cannot be used to rehear or correct an allegedly erroneous decision (Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi).

Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to substitute one view for another or reargue matters already decided (Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra and M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board).

A subsequent change in law or decision, by itself, is not a ground for review (Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy).

The Court also noted that the earlier writ judgment had considered Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The Court found that the earlier writ judgment had considered Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the applicable Supreme Court law.

The petitioner’s reliance on the CGIT’s affirmation of the dismissal did not establish an error apparent on the record or another valid review ground.

Granting the requested relief would therefore amount to impermissible reconsideration of the earlier decision.

The Court dismissed the review petition seeking recall or modification of the judgment in WPL No. 34 of 2021.