( 1 ) REVIEW, of my judgment dated 4. 1. 2005 has been sought by the respondent-workman. Sri b. N. Singh appearing for the respondent-workman has urged that there is error apparent on the face of record in the following findings recorded by this Court: the respondent-workman is neither a Government servant not an industrial worker and is not covered under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The aforesaid Act is a special Act dealing with specific subject, namely, the condition of service enumerated in schedule-I of the Act, 1946. Since the petitioner was not an industrial worker, the application of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 did not apply to the educational institution of the petitioner under the aforesaid Act.

( 2 ) SRI Singh has relied upon paragraph 47 of the award wherein it has been stated that from the "aforesaid, provisions", it is clear that before imposition of proposed punishment, the workman was entitled for a notice to defend himself and in case no such notice is issued, the order of punishment cannot be treated to be justified. Paragraph 17 which is in Devnagri Hindi, is quoted below: uprokta Pravidhan se