Case No: Civil Review petition No. 1 of 2000
Judge: AM Mahmudur Rahman ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq,Mr. Abdur Razzaque Khan,Mr. Mvi. Md. Wahidullah,,
Citation: 52 DLR (AD) (2000) 160
Case Year: 2000
Appellant: Zenith Packages Limited
Respondent: Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal Dhaka
Delivery Date: 2000-5-28
Latifur Rahman, CJ.
Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J
A M Mahmudur Rahman J
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury J
Zenith Packages Limited
Member Labour Appellate Tribunal Dhaka and others
May 28, 2000.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)
Order XLVII rule 1
Supreme Court Rules
Court cannot sit over its own judgment by way of appeal in a circuitous manner to hear the same grounds already considered in the judgment sought to be reviewed………(7)
Cases Referred to-
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. DJ. Bahadur and others AIR 1918 (SC) 2181; Pakistan River Steamers Ltd vs. Province of East Pakistan & ors PLD 1961 (SC) 393 = 13 DLR (SC) 153.
Rafique-ul Huq, Senior Advocate (Khalil Rahman, Advocate with him) instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record —For the Petitioner
Abdur Rezzaque Khan, Advocate, instructed by Md Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record—For the Respondent No. 3.
Not represented—For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Civil Review petition No. 1 of 2000.
(From the Judgment and order dated 23-8-1999 passed by this Division in Civil Petition No. 714 of 1999).
By this petition the petitioner Zenith Packages Ltd seeks to review the judgment and order of this Division passed 23-8-991 in Civil Petition No. 714 of 1999 refusing to grant, leave from the judgment and order of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 3947 of 1998 affirming the affirming the judgment and order dated 22-11-98 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Dhaka passed in Interpretation Case No. 30 of 1998 filed under Section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. This petition is founded on the grounds: that while refusing to grant leave this Division wrongly relied upon the observations made in the cases of the Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. DJ. Bahadur and others AIR 1918 (SC) 2181 and of Pakistan River Steamers Ltd vs. Province of East Pakistan & ors PLD 1961 (SC) 393 = 13 DLR (SC) 153 in that those decisions were on interpretation of section 19(1) of the Industrial Act 1947 and has no manner of application to the facts of the present casein which interpretation of section 42(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 fell for consideration and that the points involved in the instant case were not decided in the decisions. Further ground for review is that in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there was no provision for any notice similar to that of section 40(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 69 and that those cases were not on “settlement” but “award” and thereby this Division completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the relevant law on the basis of which those cases were decided. Further ground for review is that the main point urged in the petition for leave to appeal was that both the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court Division failed to appreciate that the interpretation case filed is not contemplated in section 50 of the IRO, 1969 as by such case no interpretation of any clause or term of any award or settlement was sought for rather it was for on continued binding force of a terminated agreement involving interpretation of section 40(2) of the Ordinance. Further it was stated that while deciding whether the case is maintainable under section 50 of the Ordinance, the Court has no jurisdiction to give decision on continued binding effect of a terminated agreement under section 40(2) of the Ordinance and in doing so this Division made a departure from the actual point involved in the leave petition and thereby stated that this Division committed error of law apparent on the face of record and sought for review of the Judgment.
3. In order to appreciate the grounds upon which review is sought the facts of the case needs to be stated in short.
4. The Interpretation Case No. 30 of 1998 was filed in the Labour Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No. 1) under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 praying for interpretation regarding binding effects of the term and condition of a terminated settlement dated 4-4- 95 stating, inter alia, that respondent No. 2, the trade union and the Employer Co signed various settlements the last one of which was Signed on 4-4-95 for 2 years under which the workers were enjoying benefits as per the terms of the agreement. But by a notice dated 19-3-1998 under section 40(2) of the Ordinance the agreement was terminated the Employer Co leading to with effect from 19-5-98. Submission of a Charter of a Demands dated 20-5- 1998 for higher rates of emoluments and company issued notices reducing all previous rates. Respondent No. 2 raised objection to such reduction on the ground that the existing benefits could not be curtailed unless a new agreement between the parties is reached which were payable to the workers. The case was by the employers on various grounds including that the case was not maintainable under Section 50 of the Ordinance and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interpret Section 40(2) of the Ordinance and that the settlement was not a settlement within the meaning of section 2(XXIV) of he Ordinance read with Rule 3(1) of the Rules 1977.
5. The Tribunal allowed the case holding that the benefits obtained under a terminated settlement has a binding force till a new set is reached mutually by the parties.
6. The judgment was challenged before the High Court Division and a Writ Bench discharged the Rule Nisi issued on contest with a cost of Taka 5000.00. Thereafter the leave petition was filed against the judgment and order of the High Court Division which was dismissed after hearing. This Division while dismissing the leave petition negatived the contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Interpretation case did not involve any interpretation about ‘continued binding force” of a terminated agreement and no interpretation to that effect cannot be given under section 50 of the Ordinance and that the High Court Division failed in error in holding that the terms of terminated settlement are binding upon the parties till a new settlement is reached between the petitioner and the respondent and that the decision relied upon by the High Court Division were not applicable to the facts of the instant case And this Division in dismissing the leave petition observed that the High Court Division rightly found that in an interpretation case filed under. Section 50 of the Ordinance the High Court Division had jurisdiction to interpret and that benefit obtained under a terminated settlement would continue to remain in force till a new agreement is reached between the employer and the workers or an award is made by the Labour Court.
7. In view of the aforesaid findings the grounds upon which review of the judgment is sought have already been decided. A wrong decision on interpretation of certain provision of law or principle laid down in a decision relied upon by a court are no grounds for review Error apparent on the face of the record” cannot be said to be so where a lengthy argument is advanced to explain such expressions as is argued by the Petitioner. Therefore on the grounds urged for review of judgment by the petitioner it seems to us that we are asked to sit over our judgment by way of appeal in a circuitous way addressing a lengthy and repeated submissions which already received our due notice in the judgment sought to be reviewed.
8. We do not, for the reason as given by us, find any reason to admit this petition for review.
The review petition is dismissed.