IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 548 of 2011(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30264/2010 Dated 07/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- ELECTRICITY CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATON (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BTR MEMORIAL,TRIVANDRUM-1. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR.P, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PILAKKIL HOUSE, GANESSAGIRI.P.O, MUNDAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN678592. 2. K.UMESH BABU,KUNNATH HOUSE,MANNAUR.P.O, KAVALAPPARA VIA PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678017. 3. V.SASI,KARAMKOTTUKONAM,CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PEYADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573. 4. K.NARAYANAN KUTTY,KATTIPATH HOUSE, CHAZHUR.P.O,TRICHUR-680571. 5. C.K.RATNAKUMAR,CHETHIKKATTIL HOUSE, CHAZHOOR.P.O,THRISSUR-680571. 6. V.E.RAMACHANDRAN,VADAKKE ELATH HOUSE, CHAZHOOR.P.O,THRISSUR-680571. 7. N.A.SIDHARTHAN,NAMBATTY HOUSE, VALAPPAD.P.O,TRICHUR-680567. 8. K.J.SHAJU,KALLIKADAN HOUSE,KADANNUR.P.O, TRICHUR-680574. 9. N.A.VINOD KUMAR,NEDIYARA HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O,TRICHUR-680569. RP.No. 548 of 2011(G) 2 10. M.D.BABU,MAROTTICKAL THYCATTYCHERRY, TRICHUR-680322. 11. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,LABOUR DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 12. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM-4. 13. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM-4. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER FOR R1 TO R10 G.P.SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R11 S.C. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R12 S.C. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIYAN FOR R13 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P. NO.548 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C).No. 30264 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 ORDER This review petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.12.2010 in W.P.(C).No.30264 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was filed mainly to redress the grievance relating non-implementation of the award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.27 of 2002. The said award was challenged by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') before this court in W.P.(C).No. 28836 of 2005. As per Ext.P3 judgment, the same was dismissed with certain clarifications. Against Ext.P3 judgment, two writ appeals viz. W.A.Nos.627 and 615 of 2008 were unsuccessfully attempted. The former Writ Appeal was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment and the latter Writ Appeal was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment referred in the said Writ Petition. The special leave petition filed by the Board against Ext.P5 judgment was also dismissed. The grievance of the petitioners therein was that despite the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Board has not taken any step for R.P.548 of 2011 in W.P.(C) 30264 of 2010 2 complying with the directions in Ext.P2 which was clarified by this court in Ext.P3 judgment. It was in the said circumstances, after considering the rival contentions, W.P.(C).No.30264 of 2010 was disposed of as per judgment dated 7.12.2010. The review petitioner was not a party to W.P. (C).No. 30264 of 2010. The contention of the review petitioner is that Ext.P2 award referred as such in W.P.(C).No. 30264 of 2010 could not be understood as a decision confining the question of regularisation only amongst those included in WW 23 and 24 lists, referred as such in Ext.P2 award. The review petitioner is aggrieved by the following observation made in the judgment dated 7.12.2010 in W.P.(C).No.30264 of 2010: “As already noticed, the said officer is only to identify the qualified persons from among those included in WW 23 and 24 in Ext.P2 award”. In fact, this Court only restated the findings in Ext.P3 judgment taking into account the subsequent developments. Though Ext.P3 judgment was taken in appeal, the said appeal was disposed of. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the special leave petition was successfully attempted. In the said circumstances, the review petitioner cannot legally raise any grievance with respect to the observations made by this Court, relying on Ext.P3 judgment as the findings therein have already attained finality. The contention of the review petitioner is that in view of the judgment in R.P.548 of 2011 in W.P.(C) 30264 of 2010 3 W.A.No.627 of 2008, it could not have been held that the identification of the qualified persons could be confined to WW 23 and 24 lists referred as such in Ext.P2 award. It is pertinent to note in this context that this Court relied on the judgment in W.A.No.615 of 2008 which was rendered subsequent to the judgment in W.A.No.627 of 2008. As already noticed hereinbefore that special leave petition preferred against judgment in W.A.615 of 2008 by the Board was also dismissed. In the said circumstances, the fact cannot be pointed out an error apparent on the face of the records. In short, the review petitioner has failed to bring forth any ground for reviewing the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 30264 of 2010. In view of the facts expatiated above, I am of the considered view that the review petitioner has failed to bring out the error apparent on the face of the records warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. In my view it is an appeal in disguise. This Court cannot rewrite the judgment by invoking the review jurisdiction. For all these reasons, this review petition is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc R.P.548 of 2011 in W.P.(C) 30264 of 2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 R.P.548 of 2011 in W.P.(C) 30264 of 2010 5