Grounds for review given are repetitions of the grounds given in earlier writ petition.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Aggrieved against the common under passed by this Court in W.Ps. Nos. 5820/94 etc., batch dated 12-9-1997, Managing Director and General Manager of Hindustan Photo Films Company Limited, Ootacamund have filed the above review applications before this Court.

2. Initially persons numbering about 100 all working in Hindustan Photo Films, Indu Nagar, Ootacamund, aggrieved against the action of their management (review petitioners herein) filed W.P. No. 5820 of 94 and other writ petitions on various grounds. By order dated 12-9-97 after considering the claim of the workmen as well as the management, in the light of the various statutory provisions coupled with law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, this Court had issued a direction to the management to consider the claim of the workmen for absorption as regular employees of Hindustan Photo Films. Aggrieved by the said decision, the management has filed the above review applications. In the grounds of review petitions, the management mainly contended that most of the workers/trainees after completion of their training period left their services and the particulars regarding the same have not been considered by this Court and according to them, it is an error apparent and the same has to be reviewed under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C.

3. After notice to the respondents, I have heard Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-management and Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the respondents/workmen.

4. Even though several contentions have been raised in the review petitions, taking note of the limited scope under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., learned senior counsel for the petitioner confined his argument by pointing out the statistics that some of the trainees after completion left the service and accordingly Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies. Accordingly, there is no question of complying Section 25-F of the said Act. In other words, he reiterated that the management has not violated Section 25-F of the Act; hence termination will not be held invalid. No doubt, he took me through the statistics furnished by the management in the typed book of papers and submitted that the action of the management is fully justified and the common order passed in the writ petitions have to be reviewed or modified suitably. By relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Baskaran v. The Commissioner of College Education 1995 (2) CTC 513, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Court has ample power under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India to correct the error in the order passed earlier.

5. On the other hand, Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned counsel for the workmen, after taking me through the various contentions already raised, discussion and the ultimate decision rendered in the writ petitions, has submitted that the very same contentions have been raised earlier and after considering the same, this Court has rightly rejected all the said contentions; accordingly the same cannot be argued once again in the review applications. According to him, in the light of the specific provision, namely, Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., coupled with various decisions of the Supreme Court, the review jurisdiction of this Court is very limited; accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the present applications for review.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

7. Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel straightway brought to my notice the particulars regarding the fact that some of the workmen after completion of their training period, left the service, and accordingly the action of the management is justified under Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is no violation of Sec. 25F of the said Act. As rightly pointed out by Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, the very same contentions