JAGDISH BHALLA, J. ( 1 ) U. P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation limited has preferred this writ petition against the judgment and order dated 20. 2. 2001 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, in claim Petition No. 1756 of 1999 Krishna Gopal Versus State of U. P. and others; whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner to give immediate posting to the petitioner as per orders of the Tribunal passed in claim petition no. 266/95. The petitioner was also directed to pay back wages to the first respondent. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 7. 9. 1998 passed by the Tribunal in Claim petition No. 266 of 1995 preferred by opposite party no. 1. ( 2 ) IN short, the facts of the case are that Krishna Gopal- opposite party no. 1 was working as Salesman on adhoc basis in the corporation. During service, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 26. 6. 1992 for his unauthorized absence from duty and negligence. During the course of inquiry, the first respondent submitted resignation vide letter dated 2. 9. 1992 on the ground that he is not medically fit to continue with the job. On the other hand, the Inquiry officer concluded the inquiry and submitted its report, on the basis of which, the disciplinary authority passed order for reinstatement of first respondent with sum minor punishment. It is said that the first respondent, inspite of the letter dated 23. 9. 1992, did not join his duty and as such, vide letter dated 13. 10. 1992, the resignation of the first respondent was accepted by the petitioner. ( 3 ) IT appears that by the letter dated 13. 10. 1992, the first respondent requested for withdrawal of resignation letter dated 2. 9. 1992. The petitioner rejected this request of the first respondent on 24. 11. 1992 on the ground that his resignation has already been accepted and an order has been issued in this regard on 28. 10. 1992. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the action of the petitioner, the first respondent filed a claim petition in the year 1995, which was registered as Claim petition No. 266 of 1995, wherein the first respondent challenged the validity of the acceptance of resignation letter as also the punishment order dated 28. 9. 1992. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal by an ex-parte judgment and order dated 7. 9. 1992. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal by an ex-parte judgment and order dated 7. 9. 1998, allowed the claim petition and quashed the acceptance letter dated 28. 10. 1992 including the intimation letter dated 31. 11. 1992. The Tribunal directed that the first respondent should be deemed to be in service even after the date of resignation. The tribunal, however, rejected the other claims of the first respondent as a consequence whereof, the first respondent, namely, Krishna gopal filed a Review Petition no. 148 of 1998, to which objections were filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the review petition by the judgement and order dated 15. 7. 1999. ( 6 ) FROM the record, it emerges out that after rejection of review petition by the judgment and order dated 15. 7. 1999, the first respondent filed another claim petition bearing No. 1756 of 1999; krishna Gopal Vs. State of U. P. and others. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the claim petition is not maintainable and further the first respondent has given resignation which was duly accepted by the management as such, now there is no justification for taking him back in service. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decided the matter ex-parte by the judgement and order dated 20. 2. 2001 without considering the stand of the petitioner. Against the order dated 20. 2. 2001, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) under Rule 16 of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rule 1992, praying therein for quashing the ex-parte judgement and order dated 20. 2. 2001. The Tribunal, rejected the application for recall by the order dated 31. 8. 2001 (Annexure-16 ) on the ground that the judgement has been passed on merits, against which, no restoration application lie. The Tribunal, however, further observed that the Opp. Party (petitioner in the present writ petition)may file review application, if desired. ( 8 ) IT has been pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and order dated 7. 9. 1998 passed in claim petition no. 266 of 1995 and the order dated 20. 2. 2001 passed in claim petition no. 1756 of 1999 could not be challenged in higher court as the Review Petition was pending before the Tribunal. 9. 1998 passed in claim petition no. 266 of 1995 and the order dated 20. 2. 2001 passed in claim petition no. 1756 of 1999 could not be challenged in higher court as the Review Petition was pending before the Tribunal. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned judgements, passed by the Tribunal are without jurisdiction as the claim petition No. 266 of 1995 was filed in the year 1995, though the cause of action has arisen on 28. 11. 1992. Similarly, the claim petition No. 7756 of 1999 was filed after four years and as such, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain the claim petition, which is filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 5-B of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal committed a gross error in entertaining the belated claim petitions. Even otherwise, the second claim petition No. 1756 of 1999 was not maintainable as the relief sought in claim petition no. 1756 of 1999 were identical to those which were sought in claim petition No. 266 of 1995. It has also been argued that while claim petition No. 266 of 1995 was entertained by the Tribunal, the petitioner pressed only relief 8- (ka) and stated that he would not press the other relief sought in the claim petition which would be evident from the perusal of order dated 15. 7. 1999, passed on the review petition. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the first respondent has argued that the impugned judgements passed by the Tribunal do not suffer from any illegality and the stand which is being taken by the petitioner before this Court has not ever been raised before the Tribunal. The plea of claim petition being barred by the limitation was not raised at any stage before the Tribunal either in claim petition No. 266 of 1995 or in claim petition No. 1756 of 1999 thus the petitioner are estopped from raising such a question. ( 11 ) ELABORATING further, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the judgement and order dated 20. 2. 2001, passed in claim petition No. 1756 of 1999 was passed on merits after considering the written arguments/counter affidavit of the petitioner and in no circumstance, the aforesaid order can be termed as an ex-parte order. ( 11 ) ELABORATING further, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the judgement and order dated 20. 2. 2001, passed in claim petition No. 1756 of 1999 was passed on merits after considering the written arguments/counter affidavit of the petitioner and in no circumstance, the aforesaid order can be termed as an ex-parte order. So far as claim petition No. 266 of 1995 is concerned, the Tribunal had proceeded to decide the matter as inspite of sufficient opportunity [two years], no efforts were made for filing counter affidavit or the written statement. ( 12 ) UPON considering the contentions of the rival parties, we are of the view that there is force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent no. 1. It is admitted position that the petitioner has not raised any plea of claim petition being barred by time before the Tribunal. Surprisingly, in the objection filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the Review Petition, the petitioner admitted that there is no illegality in the judgment and no interference is required. The stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph 8 reads as under:- "that the averment made in the para 3 (f) of the Review petition are vehemently denied being incorrect and wrong and it is submitted that the judgment and Order dated 7/9/98 passed by the Honble Tribunal is just, proper and legal and no interference or Review is required. It is further stated that the Honble tribunal has not inadvertently omitted to pass any order regarding the relief of the petitioner. " ( 13 ) SIMILAR stand has been taken in paragraph 11 of the Objection. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed counter affidavit in Claim petition No. 1756 in April, 2000. In the said counter affidavit, the petitioner had not taken the stand, which has been raised, before this Court. ( 14 ) IT is settled law that a plea which was not taken at the initial stage before the Tribunal, cannot be permitted to be raised before this Court and more so, when it is contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner himself before the Tribunal as would be evident from the paragraph 8 of the objection, reproduced herein above. ( 15 ) WE would also like to add that the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution could be exercised by the Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under article 227 could interfere with the findings of the subordinate court or tribunal and its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal function within the limits of its authority and it could not correct mere error of fact by re appreciating the facts. In other words, the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised more sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts or tribunal within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy. . .