JUDGMENT : Rakesh Sharma, J. 1. Heard Dr. R.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner who has sought review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8594 (S/S) of 1990 on October 15, 2004. 2. It emerges from record that the petitioner was engaged under Regulation 5 (3) of U. P. Co-operative Services Rules, 1975. Under this provision, ad hoc temporary appointments are made for a stipulated period. The petitioner's services were terminated on 16.6.1980. Being aggrieved against the order of termination, a reference was made to the learned labour court at the instance of a bunch of employees. The following reference was made to the labour court for adjudication: D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed lw;Z Álkn f=ikBh iq= Jh 'kEHkw n;ky f=ikBh DydZ&de&dSf'k;j dh fnukad 16-6-1980 ls lsok;sa lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k ^^fjfyQ** ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fooj.k lfgr\ 3. The Labour Court, Lucknow vide order dated 4.12.1989 has answered the reference as follows: Since the workman was not given retrenchment relief as envisaged u/s 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his termination w.e.f. 16.6.1980 cannot be said to be legal and justified. Since Sri Surya Prasad Tripathi was employed in the same capacity on 8.8.1989 he is entitled to get full wages for the period from 17.6.1980 to 7.8.1983. I therefore, hold that the termination of service of Sri Surya Prasad Tripathi son of Sri Shambhu Dayal Tripathi w.e.f. 16.6.1980 is not legal and justified. He is entitled to get full wages for the period from 17.7.1980 to 7.8.1983. Since he was employed on 8.8.1983 to same capacity he is not entitled to get relief beyond 7.8.1983. The workman will also get Rs. 50 as costs from the employers. I make my award accordingly. 4. This Court after going through the material on record had dismissed the writ petition with the observation that it is open to the petitioner of W.P. No. 8594 (SS) of 1990, to approach the labour court in accordance with law if he feels any grievance about the fresh cause of action of the opposite parties. 5. I have gone through the Judgment passed by this Court. Both the courts have appreciated that the nature of employment was stopgap and temporary. 5. I have gone through the Judgment passed by this Court. Both the courts have appreciated that the nature of employment was stopgap and temporary. His services earlier come to an end on 16.8 1980 by passing an order of termination, which was assailed before the labour court. The petitioner was given fresh appointment on 8.8.1983. Interestingly, the labour court when deciding the reference made and giving its award, had given full wages to the employee for the period he remained out of employment from 17.7.1980 to 7.8.1983. This Court has already dealt with the points, facts and legal issues, which were available at the time of writing the judgment. Now nothing has been brought to the notice of the court to invoke the jurisdiction by reviewing or recalling the said judgment which is not possible under the review jurisdiction. No element of Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. is present in this case. The matter cannot be reopened, re-heard or re-appraised as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 ; Harish Chander Nigam Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, (1980) 1 SCC 662 ; U. P. Pharmacy Council v. Yashkaran Singh 1998 SCD 85 and S. Nagaraj and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (1993) 4 SCC 595 Supp. 6. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. 7. After the above judgment was dictated in the open Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed the judgments in Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1979 SC 1356 ; Board of Control for Cricket in Board of Control for Cricket, India and Another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 741 and Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and Another, (2004) 4 SCC 122 , in support of his submissions that this Court can intervene in the case where there is error apparent on the face of record or other circumstances which warranted to review the order. He has submitted that there is error apparent on the face of record. 8. This Court, while going through the material on record including the reference, Judgments, written statements, pleadings of the parties and award, has found no error on the face of record. He has submitted that there is error apparent on the face of record. 8. This Court, while going through the material on record including the reference, Judgments, written statements, pleadings of the parties and award, has found no error on the face of record. This Court has already dealt with the nature of employment, status of the petitioner in the light of U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1975. Even in these judgments as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been indicated by their Lordships that the review jurisdiction can be applied only in the facts and circumstances of the case where there is error apparent on the face of record or any gross illegality which after due diligence could not be brought to the notice of the Court. Such situation is not present in this case. All the points raised were appreciated and dealt with. The Court had considered the materials available on record. 9. I, therefore, maintain the Judgment and order as passed above.