Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. If a writ application has been admitted for hearing on a limited question, can this Court expand its scope and consider the other questions also at a later stage, is the question which has been referred by the leaned Single Judge to a Division Bench for decision. 2. On a reference made under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, gave an award dated February 5, 1985 holding the dismissal of the workman as not justified and directing for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and benefits. It further observed that if the work of the management has been closed, then the workman shall be paid half the salary, that has accrued in his favour, till the pronouncement of the award. The management thereafter moved an application for setting aside the said award on the ground that it was ex parte. This application was rejected by the Labour Court by a reasoned order dated October 25,1986. Being aggrieved by the said award and order, the management has tiled this writ application. On April 21, 1987, a Division Bench passed the following order admitting the writ petition for hearing only on a limited question: "This application will be heard on only one question: Whether in the circumstances of the case respondent No. 2 could have awarded full back wages also to respondent No. 3?" Accordingly this Court also granted a limited stay order staying operation of the award so far as the payment of back wages was concerned. 3 When the writ petition came up for hearing on February 5, 1992, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-management wanted to challenge the validity of the whole of the award. In his support the learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Workmen of Usha Martin Black Co. Ltd. V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi and Anr. 1991 2 BLJR 1340 , wherein it was laid down that even if the writ petition has been admitted on a limited question, it is open to this Court to consider other points also at the time of hearing. The learned Single Judge, who was hearing this writ petition, did not agree with the view taken in the case of Workmen of Usha Martin Black Co. The learned Single Judge, who was hearing this writ petition, did not agree with the view taken in the case of Workmen of Usha Martin Black Co. Ltd. V/s. Presiding Officer (supra) and has referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Ordinarily when a writ petition is entertained it is admitted for hearing against whole award/order but this Court has the power to admit it for hearing on a limited question also. Admission of a writ petition on a limited question implies its rejection as regards other questions. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Balai Chandra Hazra V/s. Shewdhari Jadav AIR 1978 SC 1062 , wherein grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution on a limited point was construed as its rejection so far as other points are concerned. The relevant extract of para 14 of the said decision of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: "14 Again, it must be borne in mind that though an order of this Court confining special leave under Article 136 to certain points would imply a rejection of it so far as other points are concerned." 6. The Rules of this Court as contained in Chapter XXI-C which deal with disposal of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution do not provide any answer to the question as to whether and under what circumstances the scope of the writ application admitted on a limited question can be expanded. But the similar question was considered and decided by the Supreme Court holding that if appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution has been admitted on a limited question its scope cannot be enlarged later on except in exceptional cases where the Court reviews its earlier order granting leave on the limited question. In Jagdev Singh and Anr. V/s. State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 2427 , the Supreme Court held thus: "5........While granting special leave this Court considered the whole case and came to the conclusion that in the interest of justice only the applicability of the Act required examination. On no sound principle can this Court now ignore the limited scope of the special leave as granted. The scope of the appeal must be confined within the limitation specified in the order granting special leave." 7. On no sound principle can this Court now ignore the limited scope of the special leave as granted. The scope of the appeal must be confined within the limitation specified in the order granting special leave." 7. The same view was taken in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. V/s. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (1978-II-LLJ-474)(SC). In that case the appeal was filed against the award of the Labour Court holding the retrenchment of the workmen as illegal and directing their reinstatement with full back wages. The Supreme Court granted leave only as regards full back wages. The prayer of the appellant to argue other questions also at the time of hearing was turned down by the Supreme Court holding as under: "5... Once leave against relief of reinstatement was rejected, the order of the Labour Court holding that retrenchment was invalid and it was motivated and the relief of reinstatement must follow, has become final. Under no pretext or guise it could now be re-opened." 8. The same rule is reiterated in Balai Chandra Hazra V/s. Shewdhari Jadav (supra), wherein in this connection, it was held as follows: "13..... Article 136 confers power on this Court in its discretion to grant special leave from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter, passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India. Ordinarily once special leave is granted it is against the judgment decree etc. However, by practice this Court sometimes limits the leave to certain specific points. If the leave is limited to specific points, obviously the whole case is not open before the Court. Hearing the appeal in Nafe Sing V/s. State of Haryana, 1971 3 SCC 934 , this Court declined to examine the question whether on evidence the case was proved to the satisfaction of the Court, because special leave was limited to the question of sentence. Similarly, in Jagdev Sing V/s. State of Punjab, (supra) leave was limited to the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act and accordingly this Court did not permit enlargement of the leave observing that the scope of the leave was confined to the limitations specified in the order granting special leave and will not be enlarged for considering the correctness of the conviction for the particular offence...." "..... But when an appeal is preferred under Article 136 and the leave is limited to the specific grounds, the scope of appeal cannot be enlarged so as to extend beyond what is permissible to be urged in support of the grounds to which the leave is limited. Undoubtedly, therefore, the scope of the appeal would be limited to the grounds in respect of which the leave is granted......" Having held as above, the Supreme Court also observed that in very exceptional cases, it can permit expansion of the scope of the appeal by reviewing its earlier order granting leave on a limited question after due notice and opportunity to the respondents. In this connection, paragraph 14 of the said decision is reproduced below: "Again, it must be borne in mind that although an order of this Court confining special leave under Article 136 to certain points would imply a rejection of it so far as other points are concerned, yet this Court has a constitutional power under Article 137 of reviewing its own orders. This power may, in 3 very exceptional cases, consistently with rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution, be so exercised, in the interest of justice, as to expand the leave itself subject to due notice to the respondents concerned and fair opportunity to meet the results of an extension of grounds of appeal." 9. In Gauri Shankar Gaur V/s. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 169 , the appeal was restricted to the limited question. Thereafter some writ petitions under Article 32 were also filed which were tagged to the appeal in which limited leave was granted. Hon ble K. Ramaswamy, J. turned down the prayer for expanding the scope of the appeal and the writ petitions holding that "unless the point touches the jurisdiction or constitutional validity of the offending provisions", it is not permissible to reopen several points which this Court while granting leave did not consider them fit to be decided. As regards the writ petitions which were tagged to the appeal it was held that "it is desirable to maintain uniformity, the same treatment is to be given to them." Hon ble R.M. Sahai J. also held that the Bench, while hearing the appeal in which restricted leave was granted, should respect earlier order granting the limited leave. As regards the writ petitions which were tagged to the appeal it was held that "it is desirable to maintain uniformity, the same treatment is to be given to them." Hon ble R.M. Sahai J. also held that the Bench, while hearing the appeal in which restricted leave was granted, should respect earlier order granting the limited leave. But as regards writ petitions which were tagged to the appeal it was held that " it is not fair to shut out the petitioners who invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court merely because one of the questions may be the main question being common." 10. The law laid down by the Supreme Court as regards its power to enlarge the scope of the appeal after the leave has been granted on a limited question will apply with full force to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Power of Supreme Court under Article 136 and power of this Court under Article 226is discretionary. It is open to the High Court to admit or to reject the writ petition at the admission stage. If it admits the writ petition, it can also restrict its scope to specific question/point. In terms of the order of admission Bench, Rule nisi/show cause notice is issued to the respondents under Rule 6 of Chapter XXI-C of the Rules of this Court for their answers by filing affidavits. If the writ petition has been admitted on a limited question and the rule/show cause notice has been issued according to the respondents, contest between the parties is confined to the question regarding which rule show cause notice has been issued. Therefore, once a writ petition is admitted on a limited question, the relief/prayer as regards other questions stands rejected. In such a case, it is not open to the parties to enlarge the scope of the writ at a later stage. If a party wants to expand the scope of the writ petition, the only way of doing so is to seek the review of the earlier order admitting the writ application on the limited question and if this Court reviews its earlier order, it is then and then only that the scope of the writ petition can be enlarged and arguments can be heard on other questions also. But power to review can be exercised only in exceptional cases when such a ground is made out. That apart, review can only be ordered after due notice and fair opportunity to the other side. 11. The Calcutta High Court in AIR 1965 Cal 389 has taken a different view holding that the High Court is not debarred from considering the ground other than those on which the writ was admitted for hearing. Following the Calcutta decision, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Workmen of Usha Martin Black Co. Ltd. V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi and Anr. (supra) has also taken the same view holding as under: "91. Re. Question No. (e) There cannot be any doubt that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has the power to issue a limited rule. However, the power of the Court being supervisory in nature, it is open to this Court to consider other points which may be raised even if a limited rule is issued." "97. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India exercises a plenary power. This Court not only is a Court of law but also is a Court of justice." "98. If on behalf of the workmen, a substantial question of law is raised, this Court may decide the said question irrespective of the fact that a limited rule nisi was issued." While holding as above, learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramanand Choudhary V/s. S.D.Pandey and Anr. 1991(1) PLJR 171. 12. In AIR 1965 Cal 389 (supra), the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard was not there till then. It appears that the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court were also not cited before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Workmen of Usha Martin Black Co. Ltd. V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi, (supra). 13. In the case of Ramanand Choudhary V/s. S.D.Pandey and Anr. (supra), the question formulated for decision by the Full Bench was about the power of the Court to hear and decide the criminal revision on merit and acquit the applicant if it was admitted on a question of sentence only. Ltd. V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi, (supra). 13. In the case of Ramanand Choudhary V/s. S.D.Pandey and Anr. (supra), the question formulated for decision by the Full Bench was about the power of the Court to hear and decide the criminal revision on merit and acquit the applicant if it was admitted on a question of sentence only. The reason for the reference to the Full Bench was disagreement of the learned referring Judge with the earlier decision of the Division Bench in Rabindra Nath Choubey and Ors. V/s. Chaarai Chaman and Anr. 1984 B.B.C.J. 871, in which it was held that if a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of sentence this Court cannot hear and decide it on merit. The Full Bench upheld the decision of the Division Bench in Rabindra Nath Choubeys case (supra) . Hon ble R.N. Lal who was one of the members of the Full Bench, while upholding the Division Bench decision in Rab indra Nath Choubeys case (supra) has laid down as follows: "16. After considering all the points argued by the different learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that under Sec. 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no party has statutory right to be heard by the revi-sional Court but the Court may hear any of the parties, if it so likes, or may even hear the parties suo motu when the petition has been admitted on the point of sentence only, which is a composite order which means that the petition was not admitted for consideration of the point of conviction but only for consideration of the quantum of sentence. However, if the Court itself finds in exceptional circumstances that there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice, it can go into the merits of the case in its own discretion......" "17. To conclude, there is no merit in this application and the view expressed in 1984 B.B.C.J. 871 (supra) is held to be good with the emphasis that no party has any right to address a revisional Court unless the Court so wants suo motu as discussed above. Thus, the reference is replied accordingly. Let the Revision application be heard on the question of sentence only by an appropriate Bench under the orders of the Hon ble Chief Justice." 14. Thus, the reference is replied accordingly. Let the Revision application be heard on the question of sentence only by an appropriate Bench under the orders of the Hon ble Chief Justice." 14. Hon ble S.N. Jha, while agreeing with the reasons and conclusion of Hon ble R.N. Lal, J. has held as follows: "39 Having examined the question very closely and having considered the matter in ail its ramification in the light of the provisions of law and number of decisions stated above, I unhesitatingly hold that once the Bench at the time of admission of a criminal revision application has applied its mind and issued a limited rule on the question of sentence only, it is not open for the Bench to go behind the order of the admitting Bench and the party cannot press the application on merit. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this reference and the view expressed in the case of Rabindra Nath Choubey (supra) is held to be a good law. The admitting Bench expressly directed that the revision petition would be heard on the question of sentence only. I would, therefore, decline from entering into the merits." "40. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the High Court cannot go into the merit of the case because limited rule was issued at the time of admission of this revision application. Therefore, let the revision application be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice to place it before an appropriate Bench to hear the application on the question of sentence only" The Hon ble third Judge agreed with the above view. As the parties in a criminal revision are not entitled to be heard, the Full Bench has held that in exceptional circumstances when there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice, this Court can suo motu go into the merit of this case also even if the criminal revision was admitted on the question of sentence only. But the position of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is, however, different because once a writ petition is admitted for hearing respondents are entitled to be heard. 15. But the position of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is, however, different because once a writ petition is admitted for hearing respondents are entitled to be heard. 15. Our answer to the question referred by the learned Single Judge is as under: If a writ petition has been admitted for hearing on a limited question its scope cannot be enlarged later on and the parties cannot be heard on other questions except in exceptional circumstances when this Court has reviewed its earlier order of the admission Bench admitting the writ petition on a limited question after giving due notice and fair opportunity to the respondents to meet the results of expansion of the scope of the writ petition. If a party wants to expand the scope of the writ petition it has to seek review of the earlier order of the admission Bench and if this Court reviews its earlier order, it is then and then only that the scope of the writ petition can be enlarged and the arguments can be heard on other questions also. The view of the learned Single Judge in Usha Martin Black Co. Ltd. (supra), in so far as it is contrary to what has been laid down in this case, stands overruled. 16. Let the file of this case be placed before an appropriate Bench for decision in accordance with law. A.K. Prasad, J. I agree