1 CGHC010260982026 2026:CGHC:34642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 233 of 2026 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its General Manager Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg C.G. 2 - Deputy Manager Personnel B.B.M / M. S G. Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lalit Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Laman Singh Chandrakar Ex -Technician , Electrical Maintenance Department Blooming And Billet Mill, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai R/o House No, 44, -D Ruabandha, Sector, Bhilai District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 06/08/2026 This instant Review Petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:- I. Review, recall and/or suitably modify the judgment and order dated 20.02.2026 passed in W.P.(L) No.141 of 2017; II. Restore the punishment imposed by the learned Labour Court i.e. withholding of two annual increments for five years without cumulative effect; OR ALTERNATIVELY, PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.08.12 17:39:40 +0530 2 III. Restore the punishment originally imposed by the disciplinary authority; IV. Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a submission was made on behalf of the respondents that, in compliance with the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, the respondent has been reinstated and is continuing in service. He submits that, in fact, the respondent was not reinstated and, therefore, the observation made by this Court in paragraph 8 of the order dated 20.02.2026 passed in WPL No. 141 of 2017 may be modified and deleted. On merits, learned counsel submits that from the record it is apparent that the punishment imposed by the learned Labour Court is disproportionate and arbitrary. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial review is very limited and is confined to the decision-making process; this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own view for that of the competent authority with regard to the punishment imposed. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order deserves to be recalled and the relief sought by the petitioner may be granted. So far as the first contention regarding the reinstatement of the respondent is concerned, the same has already been considered and decided by this Court in MCC No. 603 of 2026 vide order dated 06.08.2026. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner pertain to the merits of the case and has already been considered and dealt with by this Court while deciding the writ petition. The scope of review 3 jurisdiction is very limited. Perusal of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read with Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 clearly demonstrates that a review lies only upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence could not come within the knowledge of the applicants or could not be produced at the time the order was passed. The perusal thereof further reveals that the review can be entertained where there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. 6. While dealing with the review jurisdiction of the Court the Supreme Court in the matter of Lily Thomas v. Union of India reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 has held that the power of review is not an appellate power and cannot be exercised merely because another view is possible. Relevant portion thereof reads as under:- “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and 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 an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.” 7. In the matter of S. Madhusudan v. Narayana Reddy and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 where it has been held that erroneous decision can be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction if there is a 4 mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. However, an error which is detectable by process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record. 8. In view of aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court does not find any force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicants persuading this Court to entertain the Review Petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Resultantly, the Review Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan