JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. - This is a petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of judgment dated 4th September, 2017, passed in CWP No. 2398 of 2016, titled as HPSEB Ltd. & another Vs. Nanak Chand and others & other connected matters. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/applicants filed Original Applications before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal seeking conferment of work charge status from the date they had completed 10 years of continuous service. Vide order dated 24.09.2015, the same was allowed by relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya Vs. State of H.P. and others, (1994) Supp2 SCC 316 and other judgments. The same came to be challenged by the respondent therein, namely, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited. By the judgment under review, dated 4th September, 2017, the writ petitions were dismissed by relying on various judgments, as relied upon therein. Thereafter, the instant Review Petition has been filed. 3. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review petitioners contends that the judgment under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. He contends that there is substantial delay in approaching the learned Tribunal and, therefore, no relief could be granted to the respondents herein and that the question of delay has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. On a challenge being made to the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal before the High Court, the High Court has also not adverted to the delay. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, he contends that non-consideration of the question of limitation would render the matter to be hit by an error apparent on the face of record. In support whereof, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal and others, (1999) 8 SCC 304 andD.C.S Negi Vs. Union of India and others, 2018 16 SCC 721 . 4. The same is disputed by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. He contends that there is no error apparent on the face of record. Udham Singh Kamal and others, (1999) 8 SCC 304 andD.C.S Negi Vs. Union of India and others, 2018 16 SCC 721 . 4. The same is disputed by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. He contends that there is no error apparent on the face of record. He further submits that in identical circumstances, relief has been granted by the Board itself to various employees, therefore, such a relief requires to be granted to the respondents herein. He further submits that even though there was a delay in certain cases, the applicants therein have received favourable orders from the learned Tribunal and those orders having been implemented by the Board, therefore, now the Board to file this petition, so far as these respondents are concerned, is unjustified. Hence, he prays that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsels. 6. The primary contention is on delay. The case of the Board is that the ground of delay was pleaded before the Tribunal but the same was not considered. That it was duty of the Tribunal to consider the same. Even before the Hon'ble High Court, the ground of delay has not been considered. Failure to consider the ground of delay is therefore, an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, by relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he pleads that the petition be allowed. 7. We have examined the records. A number of cases were filed before the Tribunal. The ground of delay has not been raised in each and every case before the Tribunal. However, we notice that the grounds of delay were pleaded in some of the cases before the Tribunal. Further more, the ground of delay was not considered in the order under Review, ostensibly on the ground that the same was not considered by the Tribunal. Non-consideration of the grounds of delay has, therefore, not only led to gross miscarriage of justice but also the same would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical circumstances, referred to the said question in D.C.S. Negi's case (supra), wherein, it was held in para-14 as follows: "14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical circumstances, referred to the said question in D.C.S. Negi's case (supra), wherein, it was held in para-14 as follows: "14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the Statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non-applicant is not at all relevant." 9. The learned Senior Advocate for the Board contends that the question of delay has been raised in a couple of cases, though there was a batch of cases and he is not sure that such a ground was pleaded in all the cases. 10. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para-14 of the judgment (supra) that even though there was no objection with regard to the question of delay, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the Statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation was not raised is not at all relevant. The facts involved herein are identical. Hence, we find that there was an error apparent on the face of record, which calls for interference. 11. Regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no delay and therefore, the prayer for review should not be allowed, we are of the considered view that what is an error apparent on the face of record is the non-consideration of the ground of limitation. Whether the limitation requires to be condoned or not is a matter to be decided when the question of limitation is considered. Merits of the contention on limitation cannot be decided by us in these proceedings. It has to be decided in the appropriate Court. It is, therefore, in that Court, that an objection, that the petitions are within limitation or otherwise, can be raised and which shall be considered. Merits of the contention on limitation cannot be decided by us in these proceedings. It has to be decided in the appropriate Court. It is, therefore, in that Court, that an objection, that the petitions are within limitation or otherwise, can be raised and which shall be considered. We are of the view that being a Review Court, we cannot go into the question whether the petitions are hit by limitation or not. 12. It is suffice to hold that based on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, non-consideration of an issue of limitation whether it was raised or not, amounts to an error apparent on the face of record and hence the same calls for interference. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The judgment dated 4th September, 2017, passed in CWP No. 2398 of 2016, titled as HPSEB Ltd. & another Vs. Nanak Chand and others and other connected matters is reviewed and recalled. The writ petitions are restored to file. 14. In view of the pendency of the matter for a long period of time, we request the learned Bench to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible.