ID no. 60/2011 titled as Sh. Jagbir Singh vs Deutsche Bank on 5 November 2026

1.

2. Present: Dr. M.Y Khan, counsel for the applicant/workman The applicant/ workman has filed the present application seeking clarification/ modification of the Award dated 23.10.2024 passed by this Industrial Tribunal in industrial dispute number 60/2011. Vide the above-said Award dated 23.10.2024 passed by this Industrial Tribunal, the applicant was granted certain reliefs by the tribunal. The applicant claims that paragraph number four of the impugned Award was not in consequence with paragraph one to three of impugned Award. The applicant further claims that paragraph number four of the impugned award was either not checked by the tribunal before signing it or the same is mistyped. Through the present application, the applicant has prayed that the impugned Award 23.10.2024 be corrected by declaring thạt the retrenchment which was already declared illegal will not be resorted to again to retrench the workman, by granting back wages and consequential reliefs to the workman for the period 02.01.2002 to 30.06.2021 from the date of termination till the date of superannuation along with grant of back wages as per the pay scale of LoR-8. case. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/workman in this

4.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the paragraph number four of the impugned Award of the tribunal was not in consequence with paragraphs number one to three of the impugned Award. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the paragraph number four of the impugned Award was either not checked by the tribunal before signing or the same was mistyped. Learned counsel for the applicant has pleaded that during the recovery proceedings before the Chief Labour Commissioner (central) Ministry of Labour and Employment, the applicant was awarded the retrenchment compensation of rupees nine lakhs only which was not a compensation in the form of back wages for the service of last twenty years. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the impugned Award 23.10.2024 be corrected by declaring that the retrenchment which was already declared illegal will not be resorted to again to retrench the workman, by granting back wages and consequential reliefs to the workman for the period 02.01.2002 to 30.06.2021 from the date of termination till the date of superannuation along with grant of back wages as per the pay scale of LoR-8. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Devender Kumar Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation, 332 (2026) Delhi Law Times 326 (DB). I have carefully gone through the application filed by the applicant/ workman in this matter. Admittedly, vide the impugned Award dated 23.10.2024 this tribunal had granted certain reliefs to the applicant/workman. A careful perusal of the application of the applicant would show that the applicant is, in fact, seeking additional reliefs by way of review of the original Award dated 23.10.2024 of this tribunal. It is necessary to examine the law relating to review of a final Award/order passed by court/tribunal.

6.

7.

8. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly laid down that the review of a final order is permissible only in the following circumstances.

i. Discovery of new or important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of petitioner or could not be produced by him i1. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record iii. Any other sufficient cause. In this view, I am fortified by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati 2013 8 SCC 320. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had reiterated the above-said principles in the ruling Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew Vs. Rajesh Kumar 2025 INSC 853. In the ruling Malleeswari vs K. Suguna and another 2025 INSC 1080, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had clarified that phrase "for any sufficient reason" means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories. A careful perusal of the impugned Award dated 23.10.2024 of the tribunal would show that the then Presiding Officer of the tribunal had passed a thoroughly detailed and reasoned Award citing a number of rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. I have carefully gone through the application of the applicant. I am satisfied that through the present application for the alleged correction of the Award, the applicant is, in fact, seeking additional reliefs by way of a review of the impugned Award.

9. In the present case, it Would be seen that there is no discovery of any new or important matter or evidence, there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient circumstances justifying the review of the impugned Award dated 23.10.2024 by the Tribunal as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is apparent that in the present case, none of the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia as stated above is fulfilled. On the contrary, the Presiding Officer of Tribunal had passed a detailed and well-reasoned Award citing a number of rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case.

10. Lastly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly laid down that under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an Industrial tribunal/ Labour court has no power to review its Award. Court In this view, I am fortified by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme of India in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs Management Of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. & another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1782.

11. Consequently, the applicant has failed to make out any case for the review of the impugned Award dated 23.10.2024 of this Tribunal.

12. In these premises, the present review application filed by the applicant has no merits and is hereby dismissed.

13. The papers be consigned to the Record Room. (Presiding Officer) Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Delhi-I 05.11.2026