Judgment 1. By all these Review Petitions (Except Review Petition (L) No. 40 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008) the employer Haldyn Glass Pvt. Ltd. seeks review of judgment and order dated 20.02.2014, primarily on the following grounds, which according to Mr. Vaidya, the learned counsel appearing for the employer, constitute 'error apparent on face of record' : (A) In respect of 28 workmen referred to in paragraph 4 of the Review Petitions, the First Labour Court had already made separate Awards, which had not even been challenged either by the union or the concerned workmen. The impugned Awards made by the First Labour Court which form the subject matter of challenge before this Court, clearly did not include such 28 workmen. In as much as the judgment and order under review includes the said 28 workmen and once again grants relief to them, there is duplication and consequent 'error apparent on face of record'. (B) In respect of eight workmen referred to in paragraph 9 of the Review Petitions, the employer by means of an affidavits had produced on record 'Pursis' indicating that settlement had been arrived at between the said eight workmen and the employer. In as much as the judgment and order under review proceeds to grant reliefs to such eight workmen, again there is duplication and consequent 'error apparent on face of record'. (C) The award of costs of Rs.1 lac in favour of the union is unjustified, as there was no reason to award the same. This again constitutes 'error apparent on face of record'. 2. The union has also filed Review Petition (L) No.40 of 2014 in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2008, on the following grounds, which according to Mr. Ganguli, the learned counsel appearing for the union/workmen, constitute 'error apparent on face of record' : (A) First Labour Court had awarded compensation ranging between Rs.2 lacs and Rs.6 lacs to the workmen, depending upon the peculiar features applicable to each of them. The judgment and order under review however, proceeds to award flat rate of Rs.2 lac per workmen, irrespective of peculiar features applicable to each of them. This amounts to treatment of un-equals as equals and consequently constitute 'error apparent on face of record'. (B) The Supreme Court in the recent case of DeepaliGundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) & Ors. This amounts to treatment of un-equals as equals and consequently constitute 'error apparent on face of record'. (B) The Supreme Court in the recent case of DeepaliGundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) & Ors. [ (2013)10 SCC 324 ] has laid down the principles in the matter of award of relief, once it is determined that the termination of service was neither legal nor justified. Further, in the cases of JitendraSingh Rathor vs. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. [ AIR 1984 S.C. 976 ] and Ex-Hav. Satbir Singh vs. Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi & Anr. [2012 III CLR 1077], the Supreme Court has ruled that denial of full back wages or withholding portion of back wages, by itself constitutes 'penalty'. The approach of this Court, in passing the judgment and order under review, is not consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decisions. This constitutes a clear 'error apparent on face of record'. (C) There is a difference between 'back wages' and 'compensation in lieu of reinstatement '. The latter component refers to compensation, where reinstatement, though ordinarily due, is being denied. As such there is no scope to either combine or confuse between such two separate and distinct components. In as much as the judgment and order under review has done just that, there is clear 'error apparent on face of record'. 3. The merits of the rival, yet united attack upon the judgment and order under review dated 20.02.2014, now falls for determination of this Court. 4. The restrictive parameters of review jurisdiction are too well settled and there is necessity, not to state, but, to apply the same, in determination of the issues raised in these Review Petitions. 5. In support of ground (A) set out in paragraph 1 of this order, Mr. Vaidya produced on record along with affidavit, certified copies of eight Awards all dated 05.05.1994 passed by the First Labour Court concerning 28 workmen whose names have been set out in paragraph 4 of the Review Petitions and now transcribed below for ready reference: Sr. No. W.P. No. Ref. No. Workmen concerned 1 972/2008 802/88 1. Vasant Shripat Mahadik 2. Babaji Prasad 3. Asappa Nagappa 2 973/2008 798/88 4. Prakash Ramchandra 5. Ramlakhan Sadhu 6. Narsaappa Sayappa 7. Ganpat Shivram 3 974/2008 830/88 8. Dashrath Vithal Kharat 9. No. W.P. No. Ref. No. Workmen concerned 1 972/2008 802/88 1. Vasant Shripat Mahadik 2. Babaji Prasad 3. Asappa Nagappa 2 973/2008 798/88 4. Prakash Ramchandra 5. Ramlakhan Sadhu 6. Narsaappa Sayappa 7. Ganpat Shivram 3 974/2008 830/88 8. Dashrath Vithal Kharat 9. Ramshankar Sharma 10 Abdul Ghani 11 Ramkripal 4 975/2008 811/88 12 Bhimrao Maruti 5 976/2008 801/88 13 Mohan Methasaram14 Parasnath Bhagwati 15 Budhiram B 16 Mohammed Ayub 17 Lalji Ramchandra 6 979/2008 809/88 18 Kishor Bhaggu Rane19 Santosh Nihar Patil 20 Tukaram Ganpat 21 Limbaya Sainath 22 Pandurang Aysu 7 1095/2008 800/88 23 Mohammed Farid 24 Pyarelal 25 Ramnath Ramkishan 26 Balaram Tukaram 8 1097/2008 799/88 27 Manohar Shinde 28 Babulal Choudhary 6. The aforesaid eight Awards record that the workmen were represented by Mr. V. T. Mirajkar. The Awards which are identical in contents, read as follows: “BEFORE SHRI V. P. PATIL, PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT AT BOMBAY Reference (IDA) No. 802 of 1988 ADJUDICATION BETWEEN M/s. Haldyn Glass Works, Off Western Express High, Goregaon(E), Bombay 400063 AND The General Secretary, Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, 252, Janta Colony, Ram Narayan Narkar Marg, Ghatkopar(E), Bombay 400077 In the matter of reinstatement Appearances : ShriB. D. Birajdar for the Company. ShriV. T. Mirajkar for the Workmen. AWARD 1. This is a Reference sent by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Bombay, to this Court under Section 10(1) & 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for adjudication of a dispute between M/s. Haldyn Glass Works and 5 workmen whose names are mentioned in Reference Order over their demand for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 24.6.1986. 2. Read Exh. C-6. The Reference is settled in respect of three workmen who are at Sr. No. 1, 4 and 5. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in respect of above referred workmen. The Reference to continue in respect of workman at Sr. No. 2 & 3. 3. No order as to costs. Award accordingly. Bombay Sd/- Dated : 5.5.94 (V.P.Patil) ams, Presiding Officer, 5.5.94 First Labour Court, Bombay” 7. Mr. Vaidya also drew my attention to paragraph in the Awards made by the First Labour Court which record that some of the workmen have settled their claim and the adjudication is to proceed in respect of the remaining workmen only. Award accordingly. Bombay Sd/- Dated : 5.5.94 (V.P.Patil) ams, Presiding Officer, 5.5.94 First Labour Court, Bombay” 7. Mr. Vaidya also drew my attention to paragraph in the Awards made by the First Labour Court which record that some of the workmen have settled their claim and the adjudication is to proceed in respect of the remaining workmen only. For example in paragraph 25 of the Award in Reference No.802 of 1988, the First Labour Court has observed thus : “25. This reference was made in respect of 5 workmen. The 3 workmen have settled their claim and the claim of workmen namely Sidhayee Jagnu and Sabhajeet is proceeded.....” 8. Mr. Vaidya also pointed out that in each of the impugned Awards made by the First Labour Court, there is reference made to 'concerned workmen' which means workmen not covered by settlement / award already made. From this, according to Mr. Vaidya, it is apparent that the impugned awards before this Court excluded the 28 workmen referred to above. The Union, which had filed Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2008 to question the Awards made by the First and Tenth Labour Court, also made no grievance in their Writ Petition with regard to the separate Awards concerning the 28 workmen as aforesaid. For all these reasons, Mr. Vaidya submitted that the inclusion of 28 workmen in the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 under review, clearly constitutes 'error apparent on face of record'. 9. There is merit in the submission of Mr. Vaidya. The eight Awards concerning 28 workmen as aforesaid had not been produced by the employer along with the Writ petitions or at the stage of final hearing. Had the said Awards concerning 28 workmen been produced along with the Writ Petitions or at the stage of final hearing, the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 under review would not have made any reference to such 28 workmen or granted any relief in their favour. Neither the Awards impugned in the Writ Petitions nor actual the Writ Petitions filed contained any specific reference to the said eight Awards. It is for this reason that no cognizance of the said eight Awards was taken at the time of disposal of the Writ Petitions. Nevertheless, there is some vague reference to the existence of such Awards, both in the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions and the Writ Petitions themselves. It is for this reason that no cognizance of the said eight Awards was taken at the time of disposal of the Writ Petitions. Nevertheless, there is some vague reference to the existence of such Awards, both in the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions and the Writ Petitions themselves. Further, considering that there is no dispute that the said Awards dated 05.05.1994 were indeed made by the First Labour Court, such Awards, though produced at the stage of adjudication in Review Petitions, can be deemed to be a part of the record. The Union, in its Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2008 had not made any grievance about the eight Awards in respect of the 28 workmen. Without resort to any lengthy or contentious argumentative process, it is clear that there is 'error apparent on face of record' in including the 28 workmen in the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 under review. Even having regard to the restrictive parameters of review jurisdiction, such error needs to be corrected and the record laid straight. 10. Mr. Ganguli, however contended that the Awards in respect of 28 workmen, now produced 'are not Awards' within meaning of Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads thus : “award” means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made under Section 10-A]”. 11. Mr. Ganguli submitted that there is no 'final determination of any industrial dispute or any question relating thereto' by the Labour Court in making such Awards. The compromise, if at all, has been accepted without any application of mind to its legality or fairness. Further such so-called Awards were not even sent for publication in terms of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or for that matter published. Mr. Ganguli pointed out that under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an Award can become enforceable on expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17. Further, in terms of Section 17-A, the appropriate Government under certain circumstances is empowered to reject or modify the Award. On these grounds, Mr. Mr. Ganguli pointed out that under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an Award can become enforceable on expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17. Further, in terms of Section 17-A, the appropriate Government under certain circumstances is empowered to reject or modify the Award. On these grounds, Mr. Ganguly submitted that the so-called Awards upon which reliance has now been placed by the employer, ought not to be reason enough to review the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 in so far as inclusion of 28 workmen is concerned. 12. The contentions of Mr. Ganguli do not commend to this Court at this stage of the matter. This is because, the Awards in respect of the 28 workmen were passed on 05.05.1994. Neither the workmen nor the union challenged the same at that stage or within any reasonable period from the making of the same. The union, thereafter preferred Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008, in which, again, there was no challenge to the said eight Awards covering the 28 workmen. Mr. Vaidya assures this Court that the issue of enforceability of the said eight Awards would not arise, since the 28 workmen covered thereby have already been paid the agreed compensation and there is nothing further left to enforce. In absence of any challenge, even in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2008 filed by the Union, it is not possible, at this stage, to consider the contentions of Mr. Ganguli, though in defence of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014. 13. In so far as ground (B) in paragraph 1 of this Order, is concerned, such contention has been duly considered by this Court in paragraph 64 of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014. This contention was pressed forth by Mr. Vaidya in the course of final hearing of the Writ Petitions with considerable vehemence. This contention has not been accepted by this Court in the judgment and order for reasons recorded. Admittedly, in respect of the eight workmen, there exist no awards made by the Tenth Labour Court. In case the disputes with eight workmen had indeed been settled, then nothing prevented the employer from obtaining Awards similar to those made by the First Labour Court in the cases referred to earlier. Therefore, applying the restrictive parameters of review jurisdiction, this Court cannot permit re-argument, as if this were an Appeal. In case the disputes with eight workmen had indeed been settled, then nothing prevented the employer from obtaining Awards similar to those made by the First Labour Court in the cases referred to earlier. Therefore, applying the restrictive parameters of review jurisdiction, this Court cannot permit re-argument, as if this were an Appeal. Accordingly, this Court sees no merit in ground (B) as urged by and on behalf of the employer. 14. The same is the position as regards ground (C) in paragraph 1 of this Order. In award of costs, this Court has exercised its discretion. True, as contended by Mr. Vaidya, the employer cannot be blamed for the delay in court proceedings. But this Court has recorded that all was not well in the termination of the workmen effected almost three decades ago. In such circumstances, if consolidated costs are awarded in favour of the union, in over 14 writ petitions, amounting to approximately Rs.7,142/- per petition, there is hardly any occasion for invoking review jurisdiction to recall or interfere with the award of costs. Accordingly, there is no merit in ground (C), as urged on behalf of the employer. 15. In so far as the Review Petition (L) No. 40 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008 filed by the union is concerned, again, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds urged are in the nature of grounds more appropriately addressed to an appellate forum. There is a real distinction between exercise of appellate and review jurisdiction. The Review Petition is not an Appeal in disguise. The issues raised by Mr. Ganguli have been substantially addressed, though may not have been substantially redressed in the judgment and order under review. 16. The decision of the Supreme court in the case of DeepaliGundu Surwase (supra) had not been cited before this Court at the stage of final hearing of the Writ Petitions. In any case, the said decision makes reference to previous decisions, many of which, or in any case the principles laid down in which, have been considered in the judgment and order under review. The same is the position with the other two decisions relied upon by Mr. Ganguli. Suffice to state therefore that no case is made out for exercise of review jurisdiction at the behest of the union. 17. The same is the position with the other two decisions relied upon by Mr. Ganguli. Suffice to state therefore that no case is made out for exercise of review jurisdiction at the behest of the union. 17. Accordingly, the Review Petitions in Writ Petition Nos.978 of 2008, 1083 of 2008, 1084 of 2008 and 1085 of 2008 are hereby rejected. So also, the Review Petition in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2008 is hereby rejected. 18. In so far as the Review Petitions in Writ Petition Nos. 972 of 2008, 973 of 2008, 974 of 2008, 975 of 2008, 976 of 2008, 977 of 2008, 979 of 2008, 1095 of 2008, 1096 of 2008 and 1097 of 2008 impugning the Awards made by the First Labour Court are concerned, the same are partly allowed. The 28 workmen referred to in paragraph 5 of this order, shall stand excluded from the benefits/compensation awarded by this Court in its judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 (under review). There shall however be no change in respect of the rest of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014. These Review Petitions are disposed of accordingly. 19. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. In the light of order made today in the Review Petitions, the time limit for compliance with the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 is extended by a period of four weeks from today.