Abdul Rehim, J.

All the above connected Review Petitions arose out of two common judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal No. 1019 of 2012 and connected cases and in Writ Appeal No. 767 of 2012 and connected cases, dated 27-06-2012 and 13-07-2012, respectively. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, who is respondent in all the Writ Appeals is seeking review of the judgments to the extent it permitted the employees of the District Co-operative Banks and the State Co-operative Banks to exercise options for transferring their membership from the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and from the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995; and also to the extent of the direction issued to the EPF Commissioner to transfer the funds on the basis of such applications. The Review Petitions are filed mainly pointing out that the provisions contained in the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 does not provide any right of option to the individual employees and the exemptions/exclusions provided under the EPF Act or under the Pension Scheme enables only an establishment to opt for any other Scheme. It is contended that, while rendering the judgments sought to be reviewed, the liberty for exercising options by individual employees were permitted without considering the relevant provisions of law and that the directions contained therein will become repugnant/contrary to the statutory provisions governing the issue involved.

2. Preliminary objections were raised from the side of the respondent employees, who are petitioners in the Writ Petitions, against maintainability of the Review Petitions. It is contended that, even if the court has taken a decision which is contrary to the legal provisions, it will amount only to an error in the judgment which can be challenged in appeal and it is not a matter for review. Referring to the grounds available under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. it is contended that, an error of law is not a ground for review. In other words the contention is that, if a party to the lis cannot bring the relevant provisions to the notice of the court at the time of rendering the judgment, it is not entitled to raise a contention that such party was prevented from bringing the provisions of law to the notice of the Court, despite due diligence exercised. Hence it is contended that the first limb of grounds enumerated under Order 47, Rule 1 cannot be invoked based on the contention that the decision is contrary to law. It is also contended that, even if the decision is contrary to the provisions of law, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face on record.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel Smt. V.P. Seemanthini, appearing for the contesting respondents had placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamalesh Verma v. Mayavati and Others (AIR 2013 SC 3301). It is held therein that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. In the review jurisdiction, the mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be a ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment under the guise of an alternative view possible. The principles governing the jurisdiction of review enunciated under the decision in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese, Iron and Ores Limited (AIR 2013 SCW 2905) was also pressed into service, in support of the above contention. Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of the apex court in Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others (AIR 2006 SC 1634). It is held therein that, the power of review may be exercised on discovery of a new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It may be exercised where some mistake