Review jurisdiction is restricted to manifest errors and cannot be used for rehearing or re-agitating merits.

The Respondent/Workman, S.K. Taparia, was discharged from the service of State Bank of India (Petitioner) in 1994 following a departmental enquiry into financial irregularities

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), vide Award dated 04.02.2003, held the discharge to be illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages

The Petitioner challenged this Award via W.P.(C) 3643/2003.

During the pendency of the writ, the workman expired

On 02.06.2023, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's findings on the basis of procedural infirmities and unreliable evidence

The Petitioner subsequently filed this review petition, contending that the Court failed to adjudicate upon the Petitioner’s right to lead independent evidence once the domestic enquiry was held to be defective

1. Whether the non-consideration of the Management's prayer to lead additional evidence after a domestic enquiry is held defective constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" under review jurisdiction

2. Whether the Court can exercise review jurisdiction to re-appreciate legal arguments or findings of fact already decided on merits

The Court primarily applied Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the limited scope of review jurisdiction

It relied on Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, which establishes that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and is limited to self-evident errors

Under Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, a review is not maintainable for a repetition of old arguments or where two views are possible

The court referred to Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, holding that errors requiring long-drawn reasoning are not "apparent on the face of the record"

While acknowledging the management's right to lead evidence per Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh, the Court noted this right is conditional upon a specific, timely request

The Court observed that the judgment dated 02.06.2023 was not a mere technical affirmation but a substantive evaluation of the evidentiary record, including the unreliable testimony of a handwriting expert

The Court held that the Petitioner's grievance—that the Court did not adjudicate the specific legal plea regarding additional evidence—constituted an attempt to seek reconsideration of legal reasoning, which falls under appellate rather than review jurisdiction

The Court further reasoned that the right to lead evidence is not automatic and requires a factual determination of whether such a request was pressed before the Tribunal; such an inquiry involves a detailed examination of the record inconsistent with the "apparent error" standard

Critically, the Court noted that since the workman had expired, remanding the matter for fresh evidence would be inherently one-sided, as the workman could not cross-examine witnesses, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

It held that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated, as the petition was an attempt to re-argue the case on merits

The Court concluded that the relief of remand was impracticable due to the workman’s death and that the principles of finality and substantial justice must prevail after three decades of litigation