1 2026:CGHC:8386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 391 of 2025 * - Manrakhan Lal Khandey S/o Shri Panchram Khandey Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Araibandh, Post- Jarondha, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Marketing Federation Limited, (Markfed) Raipur, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, CBD, Sector-21, Block C Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - District Marketing Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) 3 - In-Charge Paddy Procure Centre, Araibandh- 01, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/02/2026 1. This review petition has been filed for review of order passed in WPL No. 123/2023 dated 10.09.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in the matter of K.A. Annamma v. Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd., (2018) LAB I.C. 1039 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it would be the choice of the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.18 11:30:22 +0530 2 employee concerned to choose any one forum out of the two forums available to him. He would submit that the learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was an employee of Co-operative Societies and the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies has jurisdiction to entertain the case. Mr. Majumdar would further contend that in the order passed in writ petition, it is observed that the petitioner failed to place documents to establish that he was ‘workman’ according to provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He would contend that this issue was not dealt by the learned Labour Court. He would pray to recall the order. 3. I have heard Mr. Majumdar at length. 4. The judgment passed in the matter of K.A. Annamma (supra) was considered while passing the order in WPL No. 123/2023. In paragraph 13, it has been discussed. This Court further observed that the petitioner could not establish that he was a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The finding was recorded based on pleadings and evidence. 5. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or 3 (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 6. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 9. “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 7. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 4 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus 5 curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 8. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 9. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 10. In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for the recall of the order passed by this Court in WPL No. 123 of 2023. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case WPL No. 123 of 2023 was decided by this Court on 10.09.2025 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in WPL No. 123 of 2023 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 11. Consequently, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti