IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8111 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.12.2010 M/s. Satish Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Mahinder ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-employer has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge/Appellate Authority Kurukshetra under the Wages Act whereby Appellate Authority has directed the employer (petitioner herein) to pay ` 80,400/- outstanding wages to the respondent herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that respondent has done Bharai of 4 lacs bricks only, hence, total outstanding wages would be ` 28,855/- and ` 80,400/- as awarded by Appellate Authority are on the higher side. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, 2010(9) Supreme Court Cases 385 has observed as under:- C.R. No. 8111 of 2010 2 “The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well- recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a Court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.” In the opinion of this Court and as per dictum of the Apex Court, to correct every mistake or error, supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked unless and until Court finds manifest error of law or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment/order. Moreover, this Court in the supervisory jurisdiction ordinarily shall not proceed to discuss the evidence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 14.12.2010 JUDGE reena