IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.08.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2011 L.Subramaniam ...Applicant/Appellant 11th Respondent in WP.No.3749 of 2007 Vs 1. The Management of Carborandum Universal Limited, Chennai-19. .. 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/ Petitioner in WP.NO.3749 of 2007 2. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai-104. 3. A.R.Veerian 4. C.Durairaj 5. G.Nagaiah 6. R.Dilly 7. P.Eaganathan 8. R.Periyasamy 9. S.Palaniappan 10.P.Kasi 11.V.Raghavan 12.V.S.Subbiah ...Respondents/Respondents/ Respondents in WP.No.3749 of 2007 APPLICATION under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the order dated 20.7.2010 made in W.A. No.1373 of 2010 Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order of this court dated 17.12.2007 made in W.P.No.3749 of 2007. This Writ Petition praying this court to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.522 of 1995 to ID.No.532 of 1995 quash the order dated 15.09.2006. Applicant : Mr.L.Subramanian Appearing in person For Respondent-1: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan Respondent-2 : Labour Court Respondents 3 to 12 : Given up Order of the Court was made by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.L.Subramaniam – applicant appearing in person and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent – management. 2. This review application has been filed to review the judgment in W.A. No.1373 of 2010 dated 20.7.2010, which reads as follows : “Heard the appellant, who is appearing before us in person and perused the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed in writ petition No.3749 of 2007, whereby the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 2. It appears that the appellant herein along with others were employed under the first respondent management on daily wages. Their services were terminated in the year 1975. They raised industrial disputes, which were adjudicated by the Labour Court. Thereafter, there had been several rounds of litigations. For better appreciation, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment are reproduced here in below : '8. Accepting the order of the Government refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, the respondents 2 to 12 filed a claim petition in the year 1985 just for payment of notice pay, compensation, leave salary, etc. Though it was rejected by the Labour Court in the first instance on the ground that the respondents 2 to 12 had not completed 240 days of service to be entitled to retrenchment compensation, notice pay etc., this Court remitted the matter back to the Labour Court after holding that the respondents 2 to 12 in fact completed 240 days of service. At least, after such a finding had been recorded by this Court, the respondents 2 to 12 could have raised an industrial dispute, taking advantage of the introduction of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, even at this stage, the respondents 2 to 12 did not choose to take advantage of the amendment. On the contrary, the respondents 2 to 12 went back to the Labour Court and got the monetary value of the retrenchment compensation, notice pay etc., computed. After computation by the Labour Court, the respondents 2 to 12 also received the amounts so computed by the Labour Court in full and final settlement of their claim. 9. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner management was forced to raise the issue of maintainability of the industrial disputes raised afresh in the year 1995 by the respondents 2 to 12, when a period of 20 years had passed from the date of their alleged non employment. However, the Labour Court, on a misconception, held the industrial disputes to be maintainable and directed that the dispute could be decided on merits.' 3. After having considered the entire facts of the case, we subscribe the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and also the Labour Court that the relief of reinstatement of the appellant is out of question in view of the subsequent developments as well as the settlement of the claim by payment of retrenchment compensation. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.” 3. The applicant appearing in person submits that a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14742 of 1988 vide order dated 09.8.1991, set aside the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.144 of 1988 dated 17.5.1988 and directed the Labour Court to restore the proceedings to its file and compute the benefits due to the applicant. It is the further submission of the applicant that the observations made in the said order were never taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the management in W.P.No.3749 of 2007 dated 17.12.2007, as against which, W.A.No.1373 of 2010 was filed by the applicant herein. It is also his submission that there had been violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that therefore, the applicant is entitled to all the benefits because once it is found that there had been violation of the said provision, the order of retrenchment itself becomes non est in the eye of law and the applicant is entitled to all the benefits. 4. In our considered view, the grounds canvassed before us by the applicant cannot be said to be grounds of review. The applicant is not able to point out any error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. Furthermore, while dismissing the writ appeal, vide judgment dated 20.7.2010, the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge was extracted. In the light of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment dated 20.7.2010. 5. For the above reasons, the review application is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rs To The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai-104. +1cc to Mr.L.Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.68758 Rev.A.No.14 of 2011 VGI(CO) CS/13/09/2019