IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO.183/2018 BETWEEN:
L.Lakshminarayana, S/o late C.B.Lingaiah, Aged about 53 years, R/a Bedarakannappa Temple Road, Cheluru Post, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 117.
(By Sri. M.C.Basavaraju, Advocate) AND:
The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Tumkur Division, Tumkur – 572 101.
(By Smt. H.R. Renuka, Advocate) …PETITIONER ..RESPONDENT This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, praying to review the order dated 04/09/2012 passed in W.P. No.18900/2012 etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following;
ORDER This review petition is filed on the ground that subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition which was filed by the review petitioner, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended in an acquittal and therefore, this review petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further submits that the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is not complied with and therefore on these two grounds, review is sought.
3. The scope of review petition is very limited. The provision can be invoked only in cases where an error is apparent on the face of the record. Both the grounds raised by the review petitioner do not fall under the category of an error apparent on the face of the record.
4. It is also noticed that the review petition has been filed with a delay of 2087 days. The order of acquittal in C.C.No.1606/2004 was passed on 16th March 2018, while the review petition is filed on 22nd June 2018.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the review petition is filed after the order of acquittal was passed in C.C.No.1606/2004 on 16th March 2018.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds raised by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 4th September 2012 cannot be sustained.
7. Therefore, review petition is dismissed.
sd/- JUDGE Msu