IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1205 of 2005 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL). … Petitioner. Versus Sri Pitamber Dutt Uniyal and three others. … Respondents. Mr. S.S.Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. G.D.Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Date January 06, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Delay Condonation Application No.110 if 2011) (Review Application No. 16 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has filed this review application for review of the order dated 6-7-2010 passed by this Court in this writ petition, whereby the writ petition has been partly allowed and the impugned award is modified only to the extent that the respondent no.1-workman shall be entitled to 50% back-wages instead of full back-wages, as directed by the Tribunal. The review application is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review application. In the interest of justice, delay is condoned. The delay condonation application stands disposed of. The review application has been filed on the ground that the order dated 6-7-2010 is silent on the point from which date 50% back-wages have to be paid. I have perused the order including the record of the case. From a bare perusal of the operative portion of the order, referred to above, it reveals that this Court has specifically mentioned in the order that the workman shall be entitled to 50% back-wages instead of full back-wages, as directed by the Tribunal. Besides, the learned Tribunal has held in the operative portion of 2 the order impugned in the writ petition that “therefore, in my opinion he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages w.e.f. the date of his award.” Undisputedly, the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in L.D. No. 206 of 1999 on 17-3-2005. It is obvious that no error apparent on the face of record has been mentioned in the review application. No good ground is made out to review the order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had complied with the interim order dated 18-10-2005 passed by this Court. It is clarified that if any amount under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was paid to the workman-respondent no.1, the same shall be adjusted. With this observation, the review application is dismissed. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP