Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 126 (CAL)

Pannalal Khila v. Calcutta Port Trust

1994-04-11

R.Bhattacharyya

body1994
Judgment 1. THE petitioner has filed a review application, the object being to review my order passed in Civil Order No. 2978 of 1991 on 30th September, 1993. It is undisputed that the petitioner instituted a suit before the Court of Munsif at Tamluk for declaration that the plaintiff is the Diesel Mechanic of Calcutta Port Trust, Haldia. Dock Complex, Chirranjipur, Midnapore. 2. THE relief was sought for in the suit with a direction on the defendants to allocate work concerning the work of Diesel Mechanic of the defendant No. 1 and for injunction restraining the defendant from allocating any duty other than the repair of Diesel Engine in Loco Shed of defendant No. 1 and for cost. The Id. Court below by its Order No. 44 dated 27-2-91, was of the view that the court was devoid of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute when a revision arose for reversal of the order. 3. UPON hearing the Id. Counsel of the respective parties this Court took the view that the suit is barred by operation of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure latently and patently. It was also held that none but the tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had the jurisdiction to decide the controversy between the parties. Thereafter, this review application on the ground that the scope and object of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not considered constituting an error apparent. This according to the petitioner, is the major pitfall which demands a review of the order complained of But the lone point for consideration was whether the Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties against which the petitioner preferred the revision. It is admitted on all hands that the scope of revision is very much limited and the Court is to consider the order complained of within the realm of section 115 of the civil Procedure Code. In the light of the provisions of Section 115, the impugned order passed by the Id. Court below was examined and not a particular Section but the Industrial Disputes Act were taken into consideration alongwith Sections 9 and 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The above at any rate, does not indicate that there was any error apparent. In the light of the provisions of Section 115, the impugned order passed by the Id. Court below was examined and not a particular Section but the Industrial Disputes Act were taken into consideration alongwith Sections 9 and 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The above at any rate, does not indicate that there was any error apparent. A mere non-mentioning of a Section of a statute does not stand to be interpreted any error apparent when the statute itself was taken for consideration to adjudge the rival claims. The decision, since concluded by me in my order dated 30.9.93, under challenge, that relief is available under the Industrial Disputes Act would be sufficient to indicate that the decision was arrived at not to the exclusion of a Section or a provision of the Industrial Disputed Act. This is not a case which attributes to an error apparent demanding review of the order. It is not a case of non-consideration of the provisions of a statute which constitutes an error analogous to one apparent on the fact of record. Assuming for the sake of argument, if an extreme view is taken by the court that a point which has been decided by the Court erroneously, the error could not be one apparent on the face of the record or even analogous to it. In my view, there is no scope far review when the Court concluded that the Civil Court is not possessed of jurisdiction to decide the issue as the tribunal is competent to decide the same where the dispute of an individual workman has not been excepted. 4. THE Id. Counsel for the O. P. has endorsed in his argument that there was no scope for review as the matter was comprehensibly dealt with by the Court of review under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vis-a-vis the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner-revisionist claiming for review of the judgment does not succeed as it does so far the Id. Advocate for the O. P. is concerned. 5. IN the result, the review application does not merit any consideration and, hence, rejected. Considering the circumstances, I do not award any cost. Xerox copies be made available on usual undertaking, application rejected.