1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.737/1999 in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.29/1999 Punjab National Bank v/s Central Industrial Tribunal, & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: APRIL 17, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri R.S. Mehta, for the appellant. Shri Ashok Gaur, for the respondents. BY THE COURT : (ORAL) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal impugns the order dated June 4, 1999 whereby writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and an award passed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, was affirmed. A look at the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Single Bench has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and 2 dismissed the writ petition. In our opinion the writ petition was dismissed in its supervisory jurisdiction. Therefore, in view of the ratio indicated in Sadhana Lodh v/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another (2003) 3 SCC 524) wherein the Apex Court explained the scope of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, the argument of the appellant is not maintainable. Even on the facts, the Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the charge of interpolation made by the respondent in the ledge book and this finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the instant appeal. In Sadhana Lodh's case (supra), the Apex Court indicated in para 7 as thus : “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an 3 error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re- weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” In Syed Yakoob v/s K.S. Radhakrishan & Ors. (AIR 1964 SC 477) wherein the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court indicated in para 7 as thus : “A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can, similarly, be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice.” 4 We see no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Bench The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed without any order as to costs. (Guman Singh), J. (Shiv Kumar Sharma),J. Chauhan/