IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 936 of 2006(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.3704/1997 Dated 28/07/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER(1ST RESPONDENT) ------------------------------------------------ THE GENERAL SECRETARY, WORKERS' COGRESS, DOOR NO.IX/604, HIGH RANGE CLUB ROAD, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): (PETITIONER&2ND RESPONDENT) ------------------------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, MADUPETTY ESTATE, MUNNAR. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.ANTONY MATHEW SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P.No.936 of 2006 in O.P.No.3704/1997 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 O R D E R This is a petition to review the judgment dated 28-7-2005 in O.P.No.3704/1997. Despite the persuasive submissions made by Sri.Ramakrishnan to the effect that the finding in the judgment of this court does not reflect the fact situation as available from the records, I am afraid the contentions cannot be appreciated in a review petition. The main contention is that the finding by this court that the workman had not surrendered vacant possession of the quarters allotted to him is not correct. Reference is invited to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The report of the Advocate Commissioner clearly shows that there was a lock and key by the workman and another set by the management. True there is a report to the effect that the workman was not staying there. But the mere fact that the workman had not been actually staying in the quarters allotted to R.P.No.936 of 2006 -:2:- him does not ipso facto establish that the workman had surrendered vacant possession of the quarters. If as a matter of fact he had surrendered vacant possession of the quarters, there was no need to put another lock and key. Further, if he had surrendered the key to the management there was no need for the management to put another lock and key. Still further, even according to the Tribunal, it was open to the management to break open the door with police assistance. The options available to the management in the circumstances will not purge the otherwise tardy conduct of the workman. Learned counsel for the management also submits that all these years the workman had been in occupation of the quarters and even after the dismissal of the writ petition, on his request, he had been permitted to occupy the quarters for around five years. Though ordinarily this court may not have adverted to the fact situation in the review petition, owing to the vehement submissions of the R.P.No.936 of 2006 -:3:- learned counsel for the review petitioner regarding the disparity of the factual finding, this court was constrained to advert to the same. Thus, the contentions are beyond the scope of a review petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.936 of 2006 in O.P.No.3704/1997 ----------------------------------- O R D E R 17th June, 2009