JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a review application against the order dated November 15, 1984 of this court. 2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the orders in question. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that by this order the restoration application filed by him in the trial court has also been rejected because this court has accepted the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner. The acceptance of the recommendation is not absolute which is clear from the operative portion of this order of this court in paragraph 9. The grounds for setting aside the order dated October 27, 1977 has been accepted and that order has been quashed. But the application on which that order was passed has not been dismissed or rejected by the order of this court. The parties are directed to appear in the trial court so that the application of restoration may be heard afresh. The recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner in respect of the application dated May 12, 1976 filed by Parmatma Singh should be 'dismissed' has not been accepted by this court and that application has not been rejected. Hence it is just an apprehension of the learned counsel that because some observations have been made in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the judgment of this court are in respect of allowing that application whereas in the operative portion that application has been rejected. But his apprehension is baseless because no order for rejecting the application in has been passed by this court. The observation made in paragraphs 6 and 8 are in respect of the general principles of law and not in respect of allowing or accepting the reference or revision. 4. Hence I therefore see no ground for interfering with the orders in review application and the review application is rejected.