The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. The Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR REV.APLC(MD)No.61 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6396 of 2025 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisatin, Regional Office, No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

... Petitioner -vs1.The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minar Core II, 4th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi - 110 092.

2.M/s.Fenner (India) Limited, represented by its General Manager - HRD, No.3, Madurai Melakkal Road, Kochadai, Madurai-625 016.

... Respondents Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to review the order passed by this Court in W.A.(MD)No. 298 of 2024, dated 15.04.2024.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem *****

ORDER

J. NISHA BANU R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The above Review Application is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 15.04.2024 passed in W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2024. 2.A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the review application would go to show that the review applicant assails the findings of this Court stating that the judgment is vitiated. 3.The argument of the learned Counsel for applicant/review petitioner is that this Court should re-open the findings recorded in the judgment under review.

4.It is made clear here that review jurisdiction cannot be used for that purpose. This is not the scope of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

2/4

5.The review is also not an appeal in disguise. In the considered view of this Court, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of judgement dated 15.04.2024. If the petitioner is aggrieved, they can file an appeal and work out the remedy in the manner known to law. This Court in exercise of review jurisdiction, without sufficient and just reasons, cannot review its own judgment. Finding no merits, the present Review application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (J.N.B., J.) (R.V, J.) 03.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No cmr To The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minar Core II, 4th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi - 110 092.

3/4

J. NISHA BANU, J.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

cmr 03.04.2025 4/4