Judgment B.J. Shethna, J.-From the operative part of the order passed by the learned single Judge dated March 10, 2000 in the writ petition modifying the award passed by the Labour Court, it is clear that the said order was passed by the learned single Judge with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Oncethe award was modified on the consent of the parties, then in our considered opinion, it is not open for the appellant to challenge the same by way of special appeal. 3. However, learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Lodha submitted that he had only consented for 30% of the back-wages and not regarding reinstatement. 4, If it is so, then in our considered opinion, the appellant should approach the learned single Judge by way of review of his Lordship’s order in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of State of Makarashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249 : 1982 (2) SCC 463 . 5. If the appellant files review petition within one month from today along with an application for condonation of delay before the learned single Judge then we are sure that the learned single Judge will consider and decide the same on merits in accordance with law. 6. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed.