ORDER : N.NAGARESH, J. Both these review petitions arise from the common judgment dated 06.11.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.12226/2023 and 7091/2024. The writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No.7091/2024 is the review petitioner in RP No.1283/2024 and respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 41 in W.P.(C) No.12226/2023 are the review petitioners in RP No.1290/2024. 2. W.P.(C) No.12226/2023 has been filed by the Kozhikode District Co-operative Rubber Marketing Society Limited as the 1 st petitioner and the Malabar Crumb Rubber Factory as the 2 nd petitioner. The petitioners sought to quash Ext.P13 order passed in CP No.38/2019 of the Labour Court. W.P.(C) No.7091/2024 was filed by the Malabar Crumb Rubber Factory Workers Union (HMS) and another who sought to quash Ext.P4 tender notice and to speed up the revenue recovery steps initiated as per Ext.P3 series. 3. The Labour Court, Kozhikode passed an Award dated 26.03.2005 in ID No.3/2001 holding that the lock out declared by the Malabar Crumb Rubber Factory was illegal. The workers were held entitled to full wages. 4. Before this Court, the Management submitted that during the pendency of the litigation, a settlement was arrived at between the Management and the Unions and the settlement stipulated that it was a full and final settlement applicable to all regular workmen, Badly, Casual and Contract workers. 5. This Court noted that a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1814/2013 has clarified that if after the Award the parties have arrived at a settlement, the parties will be bound by the terms of the said settlement. After considering the judgment in the writ appeal and other issues involved in the writ petitions, this Court concluded that the Labour Court was not justified in proceeding to compute the amounts payable to the workmen pursuant to the Award when there was a subsequent settlement. This Court therefore set aside Ext.P13 order dated 13.04.2021 in CP No.38/2019 and directed the Labour Court to reconsider the claim, giving opportunity to adduce evidence to the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.7091/2024 filed by the Union was dismissed. 6. The review petitioners contend that there are errors apparent on the face of the records. The review petitioners in RP No.1290/2024 contended that the so-called settlement is a paper work between the Management and namesake unions supporting the Management to defeat the Award in ID No.3/2021. W.P.(C) No.7091/2024 filed by the Union was dismissed. 6. The review petitioners contend that there are errors apparent on the face of the records. The review petitioners in RP No.1290/2024 contended that the so-called settlement is a paper work between the Management and namesake unions supporting the Management to defeat the Award in ID No.3/2021. The so-called settlement has no certification and it was so pleaded in the writ petition. The Management owes about ?30 Crores for discharging their liability to lenders, investors and various Government Institutions. If sale of assets is conducted without reserving the amount due to the workmen, the workers will not be paid their dues. 7. In RP No.1283/2024, the Union contended that this Court omitted to note that workers are out of employment from 1999 and are fighting for their legal right and therefore direction to reconsider CP No.39/2019 without any condition is not justifiable. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, the Senior learned Government Pleader representing the Deputy Collector (RR) and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Management. 9. The writ petitions were dismissed / disposed of setting aside the order of the Labour Court and directing the Labour Court to reconsider the matter. The grounds urged by the petitioners in both these review petitions are arguments on the merits of the case. The review petitioners have not pointed out any legal error warranting review of the judgment. 10. When an order of the Labour Court is found to be incorrect and the issue is remitted back for reconsideration, the workmen cannot claim that before final adjudication of the matter, they should be paid wages especially when the establishment has stopped functioning long back. The grounds urged by the review petitioners do not give any reason for recalling or reviewing the common judgment. The review petitions are therefore dismissed.