1. ORDER Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund (Chairman).--In this application, under Order XLVll, rule 1 and section 151 of C. P. C. a review is sought of the order of this Court, dated 29th June 1972, passed in Application No. 45/71 under Standing Order 18 moved by the respondent. In Application No. 45/71, the respondent had sought re-instatement in service with full back benefits and payment of legal dues from the applicant. The latter filed the reply statement on 11th November 1971, and the respondent filed affidavit in evidence on 17th December, 1971. But, when the case came up for the cross-examination on 5th April 1972, the applicant in the present application was absent and, consequently, his side were closed. Thereafter the hearing of the case were adjourned from time to time for filing the written arguments and hearing the oral arguments of the respondent. The orders were passed on 29th June, 1972. But on none of these dates of hearing, the applicant in the present application was present or any application was moved on his behalf for permitting him to participate in the proceedings. The ground for review of the order, dated 29th June 1972, is that from the month of January till middle of May 1972, the applicant-Mill was under the phase of serious labour troubles such as Gheraot Jalao and threats of physical violence. On that account, the applicant lost track of the case and hence he could not attend on any date of hearing of the case. The respondent has controverted this allegation of the applicant in his counter-affidavit, and states that the Manager of the applicant-Miil had been attending this Court as well as the first Labour Court in a number of cases, the details of which he has mentioned. The respondent further states that he had personally informed the Manager of the dates of the hearing of the case, but the latter did not care to attend. These averments of the respondent have not been controverted by the applicant by way of counter-affidavit or rejoinder. Now, under Order XLVll, rule 1, C. P. C., review of a decree or order can be sought on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. I find that in this case, none of these conditions are present. The absence of applicant from 5th April, 1972 till 29th June 1972, i. e. for a period of nearly 3 months, on account of disturbances in his Mill cannot be said to be a sufficient reason for reviewing the order dated 29th June, 1972. Even according to the applicant, the disturbances in his Mill lasted till the middle of May. But, the case was disposed of a month and half thereafter. The applicant could have attended the Court during this time and moved the Court for being allowed to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, I find no sufficient reason for reviewing the order, dated 29th June, 1972. Consequently the application is dismissed. Hi