JUDGMENT 1. :- Notice against the real private contesting respondent no.4 is unreserved. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.98 (Annex.7) passed by the Education Tribunal whereby the respondent no.4 was ordered to be reinstated in service by setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him by the present petitioners. 2. In ordinary circumstances, this Court would have certainly issued fresh notice to the respondent no.4 and after hearing him, the matter would have been decided but the request was made by the learned counsel Mr. Purohit for the petitioners to extend the ex-parte interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners on 3.5.99 whereby the impugned order at Annex.7 passed by the learned Tribunal was stayed for a period of six weeks while issuing notice. That period has expired long back and this matter has been placed only today after six months. The Tribunal passed the impugned order in favour of the respondent no.4 on 19.9.98. He is a poor Class-IV servant who has been harassed by the petitioners like anything. He was initially appointed in 1985 but later on his services were terminated in 1987 on filmsy grounds. Therefore, the respondent no.4 was obliged to apply the Labour Court and succeeded, therefore, he was reinstated in service by the petitioners in 1997 and immediately thereafter his services were once again terminated by a so-called order of retrenchment. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent no.4 and ordered to reinstate him forthwith. The said order is challenged in this. petition by the petitioners. 3. Under the circumstances, no question of continuing the interim relief granted earlier on 3.5.99 arises. When this Court was not inclined to extend the interim relief, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Rajeev Purohit was called upon to satisfy this Court regarding admission of this matter to which learned counsel Mr. Rajeev Purohit stated that he is not fully ready with the matter. On this, the Court refused to adjourn the matter, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Purohit addressed the Court on the merits of the case. His submission was that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the respondent no.4 should have approached the Industrial Tribunal in the matter because it was an order of retrenchment and not an order of dismissal. On this, the Court refused to adjourn the matter, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Purohit addressed the Court on the merits of the case. His submission was that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the respondent no.4 should have approached the Industrial Tribunal in the matter because it was an order of retrenchment and not an order of dismissal. Whatever nomenclature is given to the order whether it is an order of retrenchment or an order of removal or dismissal from the service but the fact remains that the services of the respondent no.4, who is a poor Class-IV servant, has been once again terminated in a most arbitrary manner. When such type of orders are set aside by the Tribunal, then this Court will certainly not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of which is very narrow and limited. As explained in the case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and others reported in A.I.R. 1984 SC page 38 , even error of law committed by the Courts below cannot be corrected by this Court. It is most unfortunate that though the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal way back on 19.9.98 in favour of respondent No.4 but so far the said order has not been complied with by the petitioners though the period of more than one year is passed on the ground that there is an interim order granted in favour of the petitioners by this Court on 3.5.99. 4. It is true that while issuing notice to the respondents, initially the interim stay was granted but it was only for a limited period of six weeks and thereafter the petitioners have not bothered to get it extended and today a request is made to extend the same. In fact, from September 1998 till April 1999, the petitioners have not respected the order of the Tribunal and granted stay to themselves by not implementing the order of the Tribunal passed in favour of the respondent no.4, which is highly improper. 5. Having gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 19.9.98 (Annex.7), I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in exercise of my power either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Before parting, I must state that learned counsel Mr. 5. Having gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 19.9.98 (Annex.7), I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in exercise of my power either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Before parting, I must state that learned counsel Mr. P.R. Singh appearing for the respondent State fully supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the petitioners should be directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.9.98 forthwith. 7. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.9.98 (Annex.7) within eight weeks from today.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******