JUDGMENT : K. N. Phaneendra, J. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that this court has not considered 32 independent Writ Petitions filed by the respondents against the orders passed by the Labour Court and against which orders, the Writ Appeals are filed independently by the parties. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners, appellants in Writ Appeal No. 200419/2014 [LKSRTC] contended that at paragraph 15, in the 3rd line of page 15 of the judgment dated 17.9.2019, there is a wrong mention of the ruling i.e., in the case of KSRTC and another and B.B. Tabusi & others, (2000) ILR(Kar) 2156 which is no way connected with the Writ Petition Nos. 29653/1998. Therefore, it is contended that there is a mistake on the face of the records and the said mistake requires to be corrected. 3. We have carefully perused the judgment dated 17.9.2018 (Reported in 2018 (4) AKR 664) passed in Writ Appeal No. 200419/2014 by us, wherein at paragraph 7 of the judgment, it is mentioned with regard to the disposal of 32 claim petitions by the Labour Court, which are challenged in Writ Petition No. 22242/2001 (L-K) came to be allowed by an order dated 19.8.2004. 4. On careful perusal of the records and the order of this court, this court has also made an observation at paragraph 10 that the copies of the orders passed in those Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals have not been produced before the writ court or even before this court for consideration of the Writ Appeals on merits. Therefore, inevitably this court has passed the judgment considering the decision (Biecco Lawrie Ltd., and another v. State of West Bengal and another, (2009) AIRSCW 5779). Therefore, the said ground in our opinion, is not available so far as this Review Petition is concerned. 5. The second ground urged in our opinion is required to be considered but it will not in any way disturb the impugned judgment rendered by this court on merits. This Court at paragraph 15, has referred some other case for the purpose of dismissing the Writ Appeals. 5. The second ground urged in our opinion is required to be considered but it will not in any way disturb the impugned judgment rendered by this court on merits. This Court at paragraph 15, has referred some other case for the purpose of dismissing the Writ Appeals. Further, it is stated at paragraph 15 that, the Labour Court at the first instance, when a similar dispute arose in KID No. 88/1996 dated 12.3.1998, which was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 29653/1998 which was dismissed on 21.7.2000. So far as these aspects are concerned, the facts are properly mentioned. But so far as case number is concerned, it is wrongly mentioned as a case between KSRTC & another and B. B. Tabusi & others, (2000) ILR(Kar) 2156 instead of mentioning the case number as Writ Appeal No. 5604/2000 deposed on 4.9.2001, wherein the First Appellate Court has allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the Labour Court and as well the order passed in the Writ Petition, wherein the writ court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent in the same post, which he was holding at the time of dispensing his service. By mistake ILR 2000 Kar 2156 citation was referred to, instead of Writ Appeal No. 5604/2000 between North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli and Jummappa Dhareppa Doddamani, Bijapur. Therefore, office is hereby directed to correct the judgment at para 15, 3rd line of page 15, by deleting the citation and replacing it as Writ Appeal No. 5604/2000 between between North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli and Jummappa Dhareppa Doddamani, Bijapur, allowed on 4.9.2001. Hence, the rest of the judgment does not call for interference in this Review Petition. 6. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision in the above said Writ Appeal is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, but they are not precedents to this case. Therefore, the factual matrix of this case has independently dealt with by this court and considered the said aspect with reference to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 AIR SCW 5779 as noted above and arrived at a conclusion in the Writ Appeal, while disposing the Writ Appeal on merits. 7. Therefore, the factual matrix of this case has independently dealt with by this court and considered the said aspect with reference to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 AIR SCW 5779 as noted above and arrived at a conclusion in the Writ Appeal, while disposing the Writ Appeal on merits. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the back wages that has not been awarded by this court. Though this submission was already made at the time of hearing the appeal on merits, but this court was not inclined to grant such relief. In view of the same, such representation cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the Review Petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.