JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. The instant review petition has been filed for review of the order passed by this Court dated 14.09.2016 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.12232 of 2011 and 6311 of 2011, on the ground that the Court has not appreciated the fact that even in case of violation of the provision of Section 25-F of Industrial Act, 1947 the order of reinstatement has not been passed while the specific plea of the workman is that the worker, who came in service after him has been retained in service and subsequently he has been regularized. 2. The fact leading to the institution of the writ petition is against the award passed in I.D. Case No. 2 of 2006 dated 12.10.2010 whereby and where under the Labour Court has come to finding regarding violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 and has passed an order of compensation, the workman being aggrieved with the said award has approached this Court for modification of the said award by issuing a direction for his reinstatement in service. This Court, after discussing various judgments has refused to entertain the prayer of the workman and confirmed the award, against which the instant review petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he is coming under the exception for direction to reinstate in service since the workman who has come in service later than him, has been retained in service and subsequently he has been regularized but this Court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter, hence the instant review petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the award and also the order passed by this Court. 4. On thorough scrutiny of the award as well as the pleading made by the writ petitioner, we have not found the plea having been taken by the workman/petitioner to the effect that the persons who has come in service later than him has been allowed to continue and subsequently he has been regularized and accordingly the Labour Court has passed the order, considering the fact that he is not coming under the exception for ordering for reinstatement in service. 5. 5. We had taken into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the parties at the time of disposal of the writ petition and considering the fact that the petitioner is not coming under the purview of exception to direct reinstatement in service, hence confirmed the award. 6. We have taken note of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vrs. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848 and in the case of BSNL vrs. Bhurumal reported in AIR 2014 SC 1188 , wherein the proposition has been laid down warranting the situation for ordering reinstatement in service in case of violation of provision of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, but we have found nothing on record to hold that the petitioner is coming under the exception warranting the order of reinstatement. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate from the award that he has taken specific plea regarding regularization of the persons who are juniors and also tried to impress upon the Court by referring to the statement regarding regularization of the juniors but no document to that effect has been produced before the Labour Court and in absence thereof, it is not expected from the Labour Court to give a finding in absence of any document produced before it. Learned counsel for the petitioner is now seeking for review of the order on the basis of statement which has already been taken note of while disposing of the writ petition and as such according to our considered view, no case of review has been made out since it is settled that jurisdiction of review is very limited i.e. only in the case, if there is any error apparent on the face of record or any document could not have been produced in spite of all due diligence, but no such ground has been made out by the petitioner for seeking review of the order. 8. In the result, we find no reason to exercise our power to review the order passed by this Court in the writ petition Nos. 12232 of 2011 and 6311 of 2011. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.