The Supreme Court on 27.04.2020 decided Sreekumar vs Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank and clarified the scope of filing Special Leave Petitions against orders dismissing review petitions. The petitioner was an employee of a co-operative bank who was dismissed in 2003. After proceedings before the Arbitration Court and Co-operative Tribunal, the punishment of compulsory retirement was upheld. The Kerala High Court also upheld it in 2013 and 2015. The petitioner challenged the 2015 Division Bench judgment in the Supreme Court by filing SLP in 2015.
That SLP was dismissed on 21.08.2015. Review and Curative petitions also failed. Later in 2018 the petitioner filed a review petition before the Kerala High Court against the same 2015 judgment. The High Court dismissed it on 06.02.2020. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court with an SLP challenging only this 2020 order of dismissal of review. The Supreme Court explained the legal position by referring to Kunhayammed vs State of Kerala. In Kunhayammed the Court held that dismissal of SLP does not cause merger, therefore the right to file review before the High Court is not lost.
However that does not mean that after dismissal of review, a party can file SLP only against the review order. The Court explained that there are three situations. If review is allowed and a new order is passed, that new order can be challenged. If review modifies the earlier order, the modified order can be challenged. But if review is simply dismissed, then the original judgment remains. In that situation the aggrieved party must challenge the original judgment and not the order dismissing review.
The Court further relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Yashwant Singh Negi and Bussa Overseas vs Union of India. In those cases the Court held that entertaining SLP only against dismissal of review would defeat the principle of finality and would allow parties to keep litigation alive indefinitely. This principle has now become a precedential principle which must be followed. In the present case the main judgment dated 11.03.2015 was already challenged and dismissed in 2015. That had become final. Therefore the SLP against the 2020 review dismissal was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The judgment in review petition supreme court maintainability 2020 is significant for service law and co-operative disputes. It reminds litigants that review is a limited remedy. Once the main judgment is final, dismissal of review does not give a fresh right to approach the Supreme Court. Parties must challenge the main judgment in time.
