(1) WE have carefully gone through the common judgment sought to be reviewed in these petitions. In our view, no error, much less any patent error, of law could be demonstrated by the review petitioners for supporting these petitions. The resolution of 07th August 1985 was held not to be operative on the facts of the case. In the Review Petitions an attempt is made to show that resolution of 07th August 1985 was the basis of the appointment of the petitioners. That has not been accepted by the Court. An attempt to re-argue this aspect does not fall within the scope of the review proceedings. So far as the affidavit of Manager, Legal Cell dated 10th August 1996 is concerned it was never pressed in service before the Court when the impugned judgment was rendered. Hence, non-consideration thereof cannot be treated to be an error apparent on the record as tried to be suggested. Policy adopted by the Respondent-bank alleged to be anti-labour for which reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Dharwad PWD Employees Association v. State Of Karnataka [JT 1990 (1) SC 343 = (1990) 1 SCR 544] also cannot be made subject-matter of review proceeding as no such cont