IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1569 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.3.2011 Chandgi Ram ................Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court- II, Chandigarh and another ...................Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: None for the appellant RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral) C.M. No. 4742 of 2010 On due consideration of the grounds on which condonation has been prayed for, delay of 204 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. C.M. is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 1569 of 2010 The appellant-workman was dismissed from service on the ground that at the time of his entry into service in the bank he had suppressed his higher educational qualification. An industrial dispute having been raised, the Labour Court interferred with the punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement. Aggrieved, the management had filed the Writ Petition out of which this appeal has arisen. At the hearing, on behalf of the writ petitioner-management, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. Vs. A.Unikrishnana 1994(2) Labour Law Journal 888. On behalf of the workman attention was drawn to a Division Bench judgment of this court in CWP No. 15039 of 2007 wherein in similar circumstances the punishment of dismissal was interferred with and directions for reinstatement with penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed. The S.L.P. filed against the said order in C.W.P. No. 15039 of 2007 by the bank was dismissed. The learned Single Judge followed the aforesaid order of the Division Bench in C.W.P.No. 15039 of 2007 and directed reinstatement without back wages alongwith stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect as the same had been approved by the Apex Court in alike situation. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the workman. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge followed the directions issued by the Division Bench in CWP No. 15039 of 2007 in a similar matter involving a bank which also stood approved by the Apex Court. In such a situation we are of the view that the said directions cannot be said to be vitiated by any fundamental error which would require correction in an intra court appeal. We are, therefore, of the view that this L.P.A. ought not to be admitted to any further hearing. L.P.A. is consequently dismissed. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 7, 2011 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____