IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1707 of 2010 & connected appeals. Date of Decision: December 16, 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another …Appellants Versus Sukhwinder Singh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of appeals* filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, directed against the common judgment dated 28.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court passed in respect of various workmen. The award is dated 26.11.2009, wherein the findings have been recorded that termination of the workmen was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) but they have been granted compensation depending upon the period of service put in by them. 2. The workmen-respondent(s) raised an industrial dispute alleging that there was no charge sheet issued warranting their illegal termination. However, the Labour Court proceeded to hold that termination of services of the workmen-respondent(s) was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and the Labour Court refused to grant them the relief of reinstatement in service on account of the fact that they were not appointed on regular basis as per statutory rules governing their service. The Labour Court further held that they were L.P.A. No. 1707 of 2010 (O&M) & connected appeals purely appointed on temporary basis and thereby disentitled them the benefit of reinstatement in service. It has also been found that the job of Watch and Ward of the defaulting unit had been entrusted to the private sector agency on contract basis. Thereafter no chowkidar had been engaged by the appellant-Corporation directly. Therefore, the Labour Court granted compensation to the workmen- respondent(s) on the basis of the period of service rendered by them. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and are of the view that there is no room to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. It has rightly been observed by the learned Single Judge that certiorari jurisdiction of this Court are limited and could be exercised only when the findings of the Labour Court are without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Such a writ can also be issued if there is patent error apparent on the face of record. The aforesaid observations have been made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192. Therefore, no interference is called for in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, there is no merit in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed. 4. In view of the fact that the appeals have been dismissed on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order on the miscellaneous application(s) filed along with the appeal(s). A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 16, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2 L.P.A. No. 1707 of 2010 (O&M) & connected appeals *Sr. No. LPA No. Title 1. 1707 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Sukhwinder Singh and another 2. 1708 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Natha Singh and another 3. 1709 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Ajaib Singh and another 4. 1710 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Ramesh Kumar and another 5. 1711 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Rashpal Singh and another 6. 1712 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Darshan Singh and another 7. 1713 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Jagsir Singh and another 8. 1714 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Sukhdev Singh and another 9. 1715 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Balbir Singh and another 10. 1716 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Hem Raj and another 11. 1717 of 2010 Punjab Financial Corporation and another v. Sukhwinder Singh and another (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 16, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3