1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.--- By this common order we intend to dispose of the above referred three review petitions, as common questions of facts and law are involved.
2. ' The petitioners preferred review petition under Order XXVI, rule 1 read with Order, XXXIII rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 aggrieved and dissatisfied with the majority view of judgment dated 31-3-2009 in Civil Appeal No,97 of 2009.
3. ' Heard the petitioners in person. The petitioners are mainly aggrieved with the majority view holding that they are not workmen and as such learned High Court dismissed the appeals filed by them by setting aside the order passed by Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The petitioners contend that they are workmen in terms of section 2(1) of West Pakistan Standing Order Ordinance and the finding of High Court that they are not workmen is not in accordance with law, and sought review of the judgment dated 31-3-2009.
4. ' We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the petitioners in person, gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed. We are of the view that before an error can be a ground of review, it is necessary, that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record and that it must be so manifest, so clear, that no Court could permit such an error to remain on record. Incorrectness of a conclusion arrived at after a conscious perusal of record and in depth examination of evidence cannot be made a ground for review because to permit a review on the ground of incorrectness would amount to granting the Court jurisdiction of re-hearing appeals against its own judgment."
5. ' From the perusal of the judgment it appears that after examining the evidence in depth that nature of the job of the petitioners, findings were recorded that it cannot be said that petitioners were merely workmen doing any manual or clerical work. The petitioners failed to point out an error in the judgment floating on the face of record so as to justify our interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. In the case of Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others PLD 2004 SC 801, it was held:--- "Every judgment pronounced by Supreme Court is presumed to be final, solemn and well considered covering all points arising out of the case. If the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law, a review petition will .Not be competent. The circumstance that the view canvassed in the review petition is more reasonable than the view already accepted by the Court in the impugned order of which review is sought would not be sufficient to maintain a review petition. Likewise, factum that a material irregularity was committed by the Court would not be adequate enough to warrant a review of the judgment unless the material irregularity be of a nature so as to convert the process of acting in aid of justice to a process of gross injustice. In such eventuality a review petition would be competent. Similarly, fact that the conclusion drawn in a judgment is wrong would not warrant review of the same but if the conclusion is wrong because something manifest has been ignored by the Court or the Court has not considered an important aspect of the matter, a review petition would lie. Furthermore, principle of law is well recognized that Supreme Court would not exercise the power of review as a routine matter to rehear a case already decided but the same can be pressed into service where a glaring omission on the face of record or patent error has crept in the judgment by judicial fallibility."
6. ' Review petitions for above reasons are dismissed.