ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review application No. 35 of 2004 by which prayer has been made for review of the order dated 12.01.2004 passed by the Division Bench upon reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2002. Contention of the petitioners is that the Division Bench did not decide the issue referred to it by the learned Single Judge. 2. In petitioners' writ petition no. C.W.J.C. 1860 of 1996(R) on 04.01.2002, following order was passed:- One of the questions, as raised is whether the nominees of the workmen who retired on reaching the age of superannuation and the nominees of the workmen who have already completed certain years of services can be appointed on preferencial ground and such scheme, if any on record, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or not. In the present case it is alleged that the private respondents are nominees of the workmen, who have already retired from service or the nominees of the workmen, who are already in service and thus, they can not be given weightage over others. In the facts and circumstances as the vires of the scheme at Clause 4.1.2 (iv) & (v) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1994, as contained in Annexure-D/2, are to be tested, it is desirable that the matter be heard by a Division Bench. Let the case be listed before a Bench, presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to determine as to whether it requires an early date of hearing or not, there being an interim order of stay, having been passed by this Court. Let the case be listed before a Bench, presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to determine as to whether it requires an early date of hearing or not, there being an interim order of stay, having been passed by this Court. 3.Upon receipt of this reference, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.11.2003 after noticing of the fact of this C.W.J.C. No. 3864 of 1992(R) decided on 25.3.1994 and noticing the notice dated 19.5.1990 issued by the respondents calling the nominees for interviews for the posts of Mazdoor following the decision taken at the Corporate level of the Company to consider the cases of the nominees of those employees who died in service, or retired on attaining the age of superannuation and after taking note of the facts, held that the petitioners did not fall in any of the categories in whose case it was decided to relax the ban for recruitment and the petitioners names were included in the notice by mistake which was corrected vide cancellation and another notice dated 30.5.1990. 4. So far as question of validity of the Clauses 4.1.2 (iv)&(v) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1994 is concerned, the same has not been examined and decided by the Division Bench. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation as well as counsel for the private employees could not dispute this position that the constitutional validity of Clauses 4.1.2 (iv) & (v) of the above Rules of 1994 has not been considered by the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners. 6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to mention here that the issue was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court and, therefore, the Division Bench even could have held that no such issue arises or there is no need to decide the issue in the facts of the case but such finding also has not been recorded by the Division Bench. 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner vehemently submitted that even the law of the point has been considered as the same point of law has already been subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogender Pal Singh and others Vrs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1015 as well as in the case of Auditor General of India and others Vrs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1015 as well as in the case of Auditor General of India and others Vrs. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao reported in AIR 1994 SC 1521 wherein even after recognizing compassionate appointment to the family members of the employee, who died in harness and accepting that, that scheme to be valid, held that such scheme cannot be extended to give benefit to the relatives or because of any other reason to descendants of the employees in service and who are not falling in the category of dependent of the deceased employee, or whose services has been terminated on account of medical disablement. 8. Therefore, the appointments which were given subsequent to filing of the writ petition were liable to be quashed upon finding that the above referred clauses were unconstitutional and violative of Article 13, 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It is also submitted that there was interim order passed by this Court in the petitioners writ petition prohibiting the employer to give any appointment under the Clauses referred above. However, that interim order was passed after appointment of the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition of the writ petitioners clearly held that whenever the respondent will offer any appointment, the petitioners case will be considered and, therefore, petitioners were entitled to appointments upon any future vacancies. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that in fact there was a labour dispute wherein in the year 1947 award was passed wherein the issue of giving appointment to the relatives and other dependents other than the persons who are dependents of the deceased employee and who are the dependents of the employees who were rendered jobless on the medical ground was considered. In that Award, the issue of offering appointment to the near relatives like brothers and other persons was considered and a decision was taken which was followed regularly. Thereafter, in the year 1994, a settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein the impugned clauses have been incorporated in the Rules of 1994 and under these Rules only, the appointments were offered to the private respondents, therefore, the Corporation is following the rules. Thereafter, in the year 1994, a settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein the impugned clauses have been incorporated in the Rules of 1994 and under these Rules only, the appointments were offered to the private respondents, therefore, the Corporation is following the rules. It is submitted that the awards of 1947 have not been challenged by the writ petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the private respondents vehemently submitted that the private respondents were given appointment by following the decision taken in conciliation proceeding and under rules framed having the force of law under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the respondents' appointment was fully justified and legal and cannot be quashed. It is also submitted that it is a preferential appointment and not a total denial of competition under the rules, therefore, rules are valid. In alternate, even if it is held that above referred clauses are unconstitutional, then also the effect should be given only prospectively so as not to disturb the appointment of the private respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that all these issues can be decided in the review petition itself, therefore, first we have to examine this issue that whether while deciding review petition the validity of rules itself we can adjudicate on the merits? 12. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable to the writ proceedings but principle as enumerated in the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are the guiding principles for deciding the matters. To examine whether we can decide all those issues in review petition in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioners it will be appropriate to look into the Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C.). The review petition lies under Order XLVII of the C.P.C. and the court may reject the review application under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 4 of Order XLVII of the C.P.C. where it appears to the court that there is not sufficient ground for a review. The review petition lies under Order XLVII of the C.P.C. and the court may reject the review application under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 4 of Order XLVII of the C.P.C. where it appears to the court that there is not sufficient ground for a review. If court does not reject the review application, it may proceed as per Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order XLVII and may issue notice to opposite party as per Sub Clause (a) under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order XLVII C.P.C. and if the review application is allowed, then procedure under Rule 8 of Order XLVII C.P.C. is required to be followed which is as under :- 8.Registry of application granted, and order for re-hearing.-When an application for review is granted, a note thereof shall be made in the register and the Court may at once re-hear the case or make such order in regard to the re-hearing as it thinks fit. 13. A bare perusal of Rule 8 of Order XLVII C.P.C. mandates that when application for review is granted, then the original petition is required to be re-heard. Therefore, in review petition itself, the issue which are subject matters in the petition wherein order impugned in review petition and which is sought to be reviewed, cannot be decided. The proper procedure is to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter in which original order was passed and it may be heard at once or at any time thereafter, i.e., after setting aside the order sought to be reviewed. 14. Since the question which has been referred to the Division Bench has not been decided by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this review petition No. 35 of 2004 deserves to be allowed hence allowed and the Division Bench Order dated 17.11.2003 passed upon reference in C.W.J.C. No. 1863 of 1996(R) is set aside and C.W.J.C. No. 1863 of 1996(R) is restored to its original number.