The Supreme Court on 27.04.2020 in Sreekumar vs Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd dismissed a Special Leave Petition and explained an important principle of procedural law. The case arose from a service dispute of an employee of Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank in Kerala. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.03.2003 after a disciplinary inquiry. He challenged the dismissal before the Co-operative Arbitration Court which by award dated 18.08.2010 modified the punishment to reduction to a lower rank. Both the employee and the Bank filed appeals before the Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 16.08.2011 set aside the Arbitration Court order and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with terminal benefits subject to dues.
The employee filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the Tribunal order. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ on 31.07.2013. The employee then filed Writ Appeal No.1313 of 2013 which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 11.03.2015. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition No.24231 of 2015 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 21.08.2015. Thereafter the petitioner also filed Review Petition and Curative Petition which were dismissed in 2016.
After exhausting all remedies, the petitioner filed Review Petition No.805 of 2018 before the Kerala High Court seeking review of the Division Bench judgment dated 11.03.2015. The High Court dismissed the review petition on 06.02.2020 after considering the matter on merits and holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court observed that review is not an appeal in disguise. The petitioner then filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court challenging only the order dated 06.02.2020 dismissing the review petition. He did not challenge the main judgment dated 11.03.2015 again.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan dismissed the SLP. The Court held that the law is well settled. When an SLP against the main judgment of the High Court is dismissed, that judgment attains finality between the parties. Dismissal of a subsequent review petition does not give rise to a fresh right to file SLP. There is no merger in such cases. The remedy available to the aggrieved party is to challenge the main judgment within the period of limitation. Filing SLP only against the dismissal of review is an attempt to indirectly reopen a matter that has already become final. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Yashwant Singh Negi 2013 and Bussa Overseas vs Union of India 2016 to reiterate this principle. The Court also noted that the High Court had examined the review petition on merits and found no ground to interfere. Therefore the SLP was dismissed.
Conclusion
Sreekumar vs Kuruppampady Co-op Bank is an important judgment on s l p against review petition dismissed supreme court 2020. It reaffirms that once the main judgment attains finality, a party cannot maintain an SLP only against the order rejecting review. This ensures finality of litigation and prevents misuse of review jurisdiction.
