IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 142 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2725/2009 Dated 01/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- S.K.BALARISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. S.K.KOMAN, RESIDING AT BELLIKOTH, AJANUR.P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KASARGODE DISTRICT SAHAKARANA BANK LTD., KASARGODE.P.O., 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, ALL KERALA BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KASARGODE.P.O. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.142 OF 2010 IN W.A.No.2725 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent No.1. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Division Bench while disposing of the writ appeal had proceeded as though the appellant was solely responsible for the misappropriation. According to the learned counsel the said observation is contrary to the facts available on record particularly as could be discerned from the enquiry report. 3. We are afraid the above contention cannot be permitted to be urged at this stage and that too in a petition for review of the judgment. The observation, if any, made in paragraph 6 of the judgment was only with reference to a contention raised by the appellant in the course of argument. The Writ Appeal was disposed of finding that there was no scope for interference with the view taken by RP.No.142/2010 2 the learned Single Judge. Nothing more; nothing less. 4. In any view of the matter, the prayer now made by the petitioner for review is totally misconceived. The contentions now raised by the petitioner as is revealed from the grounds in the review petition, are totally alien to the review jurisdiction. Further, it is brought to our notice that even before the disposal of the writ appeal, the Board had already imposed a punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench at the time of disposal of the appeal. Any how, the issue has become fait accompli. In that view of the matter also, there is no warrant for review of the judgment. The Review Petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. RP.No.142/2010 2