JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri V.B.Misra in the first, second and last writ petitions for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Rai learned Counsel for the petitioner in the third writ petition and Sri A.N. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner in the fourth writ petition and Sri S.K. Misra learned Counsel for the workman respondent in the first four writ petitions. In the last writ petition no one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondent even though the name of his learned Counsel Sri Kushal Kant and Sri Chandeshwar Prasad who had appeared on the admission stage on his behalf were printed in the cause list. 2. The common question involved in all these five writ petitions is as to whether Labour Court has got power of review or not. To put it in other words the question of interpretation of Section 6(6) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is involved. Under the said section Labour Court has got jurisdiction to correct any clerical or arithmetical errors in the awards or the errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission; Whether this provision confers power of review upon the Labour Court and if so to what extent. However, facts of each case are different which are given below. First Writ Petition 3. Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. Varanasi in Adjudication case No. 103 of 1995 decided on 9.1.1997 held that the workman respondent had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, hence, he was not entitled to the protection of Section 6-N of U.P. I.D Act. Accordingly it was held that action of petitioner employer terminating the services of respondent workman with effect from 29.9.1993 from the post of Chaukidar was valid and workman was not entitled to any relief. (Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 22.8.1990 and his services were terminated on 10.6.1991, thereafter the workman was taken back in service due to stay order passed in his writ petition. After dismissal of the writ petition workman was removed on 29.9.1993. Alongwith termination letter dated 9.6.1991 one month’s wages and further compensation of Rs. 345 was also paid/ offered). Thereafter, review application under Section 6(6) of U.P. I.D Act was filed which was allowed by the Labour Court on 8.1.1998 which order is Challenged through the first writ petition. In the order dated 8.1.1998. Alongwith termination letter dated 9.6.1991 one month’s wages and further compensation of Rs. 345 was also paid/ offered). Thereafter, review application under Section 6(6) of U.P. I.D Act was filed which was allowed by the Labour Court on 8.1.1998 which order is Challenged through the first writ petition. In the order dated 8.1.1998. It was held that the Presiding Officer in the earlier award had committed legal mistake in holding that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year. Labour Court held that after addition of Section 25-B (2) in the Industrial Disputes Act (Central), it was not necessary that 240 days should have been completed in a calendar year and the only requirement was that only 240 days of total service should have been completed. Through the said order earlier award was set-aside and matter was posted for future date for hearing on merit in order to give fresh award. Second Writ Petition 4. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Varanasi decided Adjudication ,Case No. 198 of 1994 on 16.12.1996 holding that services of workman (respondent were rightly terminated on 29.9.1993. In the said case according to the workman he was appointed on 20.6.1990 and his services were terminated on 10.6.1991. The Labour Court held that the workman in one calendar year had not completed 240 days of service hence, he was not entitled to the protection of Section 6-N of U.P.I.D Act. (Petitioner employer stated that services were terminated after paying /offering one month’s wages and compensation). Thereafter recall review application was filed which was completely allowed on 18.12.1997 and it was held that there was a legal error in the earlier award as by virtue of section 6-N of U.P.I.D Act read with Section 2(g) of U.P.I.D Act. Workman had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year. Accordingly Labour Court set-aside the earlier award and gave fresh award declaring the termination to be illegal and directing reinstatement with full back wages. It was further held that offered compensation and one month’s wages were received by the workman much later. The said order dated 18.12.1997 has been challenged through the second writ petition. Third Writ Petition 5. Accordingly Labour Court set-aside the earlier award and gave fresh award declaring the termination to be illegal and directing reinstatement with full back wages. It was further held that offered compensation and one month’s wages were received by the workman much later. The said order dated 18.12.1997 has been challenged through the second writ petition. Third Writ Petition 5. Earlier Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. Varanasi decided the Adjudication case No. 94 of 1995 on 27.3.1997 holding that the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman contesting respondent with effect from 30.9.1993 was valid as provisions of Section 6-N of U.P.I.D Act had been complied with. 6. According to the petitioner he was appointed on 14.6.1991 and services were terminated on 15.6.1991, thereafter, he filed writ petition in which stay order was granted but afterwards writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of approaching the Labour Court. After dismissal of the writ petition services of the workman were terminated on 30.9.1993. Labour Court held that in the notice for termination of service offer of payment of compensation was made, however, the workman refused to accept the amount hence provisions of Section 6-N of U.P.I.D Act stood satisfied. Thereafter, the workman filed recall/review application. Presiding Officer through order dated 22.5.1998, reviewed the earlier award and held that Visions of section 6-N had not been complied with. The Presiding Officer held that the amount which was offered to be paid through the notice was not actually paid, hence, provisions of Section 6-N had not been complied with and termination was illegal. Order dated 22.5.1998 has been challenged through this writ petition. Fourth Writ Petition 7. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Varanasi decided Adjudication case No. 104 of 1995 on 27.3.1997. In the said case also services of the workman respondent had been terminated on 14.6.1991, thereafter writ petition was filed which was dismissed on the ground of Alternative remedy and thereafter services were again terminated on 30.9.1993. In the said case also Labour Court held that retrenchment compensation had been offered in the notice, hence, Section 6-N had been complied with. In the said case also recall/ review application was filed which was allowed on 25.5.1998 holding that the offer/ payment was not of complete amount as required by Section 6-N. Thereafter, it was directed that the workman concerned should be reinstated with back wages. In the said case also recall/ review application was filed which was allowed on 25.5.1998 holding that the offer/ payment was not of complete amount as required by Section 6-N. Thereafter, it was directed that the workman concerned should be reinstated with back wages. Fifth Writ Petition 8. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Varanasi decided the Adjudication Case No. 103 of 1995 on 9.1.1997. In this case also services of contesting respondent workman who was Chaukidar were ‘ terminated on 10.6.1991. He filed writ petition which was afterwards dismissed and then he was removed on 29.9.1993. In the said award also, it was held that workman had not completed 240 days of service In a calendar year as he was appointed on 22.8.1990. Thereafter, award was reviewed on the application of workman and a contrary award was passed on 14.4.1998 holding that services of 240 days in a calendar year had been completed and there was no evidence that notice offering retrenchment compensation was served upon the workman. 9. The point involved in these writ petitions is concluded by a recent , authority of the Supreme Court reported in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiyaz Hussain, AIR 2006 SC 649 . The Supreme Court in the said authority has equated the powers of section 6 (6) of U.P.I.D Act with the powers of Civil Court under Section 152 C.P.C. The Supreme Court has held that Section 6(6) does not confer power of review and under the said section only such thing which was omitted to be considered in the original award may be considered or accidental or arithmetical slips may be corrected. In a later authority reported in J.K. Synthetic Limited v. K.P. Agarwal, 2007 AIRSCW 1357, the authority of U.P.S,R.T.C. v. Imtiyaz Hussain, has been considered and it has been held that if a point has wrongly been decided then it cannot be reviewed, however, if a point has not at all been decided in the original award then it may be decided under Section 6(6). The Supreme Court clarified that in case Labour Court held that workman was not entitled to back wages alongwith reinstatement then by exercising powers under Section 6(6) of U.P.I.D Act, back wages could not be awarded even if earlier award refusing to award back wages was erroneous in law. The Supreme Court clarified that in case Labour Court held that workman was not entitled to back wages alongwith reinstatement then by exercising powers under Section 6(6) of U.P.I.D Act, back wages could not be awarded even if earlier award refusing to award back wages was erroneous in law. However, the Supreme Court has held that if in the award only reinstatement has been directed and nothing has been said regarding back wages i.e. neither they are awarded nor refused to be awarded then under Section 6 (6) question of award of back wages may be considered. 10. In all these writ petitions the question of requirement of compliance of Section 6-N of U.P.I.D Act and/ or question of actual compliance of the said provisions had already been decided through initial awards. Even if the said decision was erroneous, it could not be reviewed. The learned Counsel for the workmen has cited the following authorities : 1. Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and others, AIR 1966 S.C. 1631 ; 2. S. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another, JT1993 (4)S.C27; 3. Shaflq and others v. Deputy Dlrector, Consolidation, Ballia and others, 1994 A.W.C. 351; 4. Surya Narain Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 1991 (17) A.L.R.131; 5. Shushma Misra v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and others, 1998 UPLBEC1502; 6. Avdhesh Singh and another v. Bikarma Ahir and others, 1975 R.D.132, 7. The Selection Committee for admission to the Medical and Dental Colleges, Bangalore v. M.P. Nagaraj, AIR 1972 Mysore 44 and 8. Surjit Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 1997 (77) F.L.R. 41 . 11. In the above authorities power of review of Civil Court, High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, Supreme Court and other Courts was considered. In none of the authorities power of review by the Labour Court was considered. In the aforesaid authorities of U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiyaz Hussain (supra) and J.K. Synthetic Limited v. K.P. Agarwal (supra) provision in question i.e. Section 6(6) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was considered. 12. The Labour Court for justifying review placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority reported in Surjit Singh (supra). In the said authority, it was held that Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 has power of review. Section 22(3) (f) of the said Act expressly confers power of review on the Tribunals constituted under it. 13. 12. The Labour Court for justifying review placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority reported in Surjit Singh (supra). In the said authority, it was held that Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 has power of review. Section 22(3) (f) of the said Act expressly confers power of review on the Tribunals constituted under it. 13. Even on merit reviewed awards cannot be sustained as in all cases provisions of section 6-N of U.P. I.D Act had been complied with by offering the requisite compensation. Even though the Court is of the opinion that in the initial awards giving rise to first, second and fifth writ petition Labour Court had wrongly held that workman had not completed 240 days however, as provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. I.D Act had been complied with hence termination order could not be set-aside. 14. Accordingly all the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned reviewed awards/order in the first writ petition are quashed. Original awards are restored. ————