Review Petition Invalid Without Due Diligence in Bringing New Rule to Notice of Court | HC

Case Details: Bhanu Lodh vs. Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. [2025] 180 taxmann.com 732 (HC-TRIPURA)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ.
• Tapas Datta Majumder, Sr. Adv. & Tapas Halam, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Pradyumna Gautam, Sr. G.A. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking payment of the outstanding gratuity balance and placed reliance on Rule 9.5 of the respondent’s Standing Rules, Regulations and Conditions of Service of Managerial Staff and Assistants/Officers/Supervisors.

The Single Judge held that, since Rule 9.5 of the Rules cited by the appellant entitled him to an amount more beneficial to the appellant, the respondents could not only pay Rs. 20 lakhs, but also pay the appellant the balance amount along with interest.

The Respondents filed a Review Petition contending that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the appellant, that he had manipulated Rule 9.5 in the Writ Petition, which contained the rule and secured relief in the Writ Petition.

According to respondents, the actual document dealing with the payment of gratuity and other service benefits of employees was not a document filed as ‘Rules’ by the appellant, but another document titled ‘The Tripura Jute Mills Limited Standing Rules, Regulations and Conditions of Service of Managerial Staff and Assistants’ and the last two words ‘Officers/Supervisors’ were absent.

The Single Judge accepted the respondents’ plea, recalled his order in the writ petition by allowing the Review Petition, and imposed high exemplary costs on the appellant.

It was noted that in counter affidavit filed by respondents before the Single Judge in writ petition they had only pleaded about payment of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended from time to time and they had made no mention of rule 9.5 cited by them in review petition mentioning only 20 years of completed years of service instead of 40 years of service on which appellant relied on.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that, in a review petition, new grounds which were not raised in the original writ petition by the respondents could not have been raised.

The High Court held that, since the respondents had failed to exercise due diligence in bringing to the Single Judge’s notice a new rule on which they had relied in the review petition before he decided the writ petition, the Single Judge erred in allowing the review petition. Therefore, Writ Appeal was allowed; the order in the Review Petition was to be set aside, and the order in the writ petition was to be restored.

List of Cases Referred to

• Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association v. State of Tripura [WP (C) No. 844 of 2020] (para 11)
• Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick AIR 1988 SC 2121 (para 19)
• Nehali Panjiyara v. Shyama Devi (2002) 10 SCC 578 (para 20)
• Avinash Hansraj Gajbhiye v. Official Liquidator, V. Pharma (P.) Ltd. AIR 2006 SC 1317 (para 23).