Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue decided issues absent an error apparent on the record.

The Transport Corporation sought review of an order in a writ petition concerning the dismissal of its employee, S. Jegan, who was alleged to have been unauthorisedly absent from duty from 11 February 2019.

The Corporation contended that a domestic enquiry had been conducted, the employee was proceeded against ex parte, and the charges were proved.

It also maintained that it filed an approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in connection with the dismissal.

In the order under review, the Court had directed reinstatement with continuity of service but denied backwages for the period of non-employment.

The Corporation applied for review, arguing that the Court had failed to properly consider the enquiry and approval-petition circumstances.

1. Whether the Corporation established an error apparent on the face of the record, or another recognised ground, warranting review of the prior order

2. Whether the Corporation’s contentions concerning the domestic enquiry and the filing of the Section 33(2)(b) approval petition justified reopening the issues already decided

Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, review is confined to recognised grounds, including an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier, or another sufficient reason.

Review is not an appeal and cannot be used merely to reappreciate evidence or substitute one possible view for another.

The Court also considered Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to the Corporation’s approval petition.

The Court found that the earlier order had already considered the Corporation’s submissions regarding the domestic enquiry and the Section 33(2)(b) approval petition.

It had also addressed the eight-day delay in filing the approval petition and found it insufficiently explained.

The review application repeated contentions previously considered and did not identify an apparent error or other ground permitting review.

The Corporation’s disagreement with the Court’s assessment did not convert review jurisdiction into appellate reconsideration.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.