JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the employer has challenged the award of Labour court Dhar dated 10/5/2010 directing reinstatement of respondent without back-wages. 3. The Dy. Labour Commissioner under Section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had referred the dispute relating to illegal retrenchment of respondents to the labour court and the respondents had filed the claim with the plea that they were appointed as line helper and their services were terminated without assigning any reason, without conducting any enquiry or issuing any charge sheet or show cause notice on 16/6/95. It was further pleaded that each of respondents had worked on vacant post for more than 240 days in the preceding year and respondents were also not paid any retrenchment compensation and after terminating the services of respondents several other employees were recruited. Hence the reinstatement with back-wages was prayed. 4. The prayer was opposed by petitioner raising the plea that no employer employee relationship exists and respondents were employed by Rural Electrification Cooperative Society Manawar for construction work and respondents were not entitled for regular service and no question of giving any opportunity or reinstatement compensation arises because the respondents were not employee of petitioner. 5. Labour court by permitting the parties to lead evidence and appreciating the same has found that employer employee relationship exists between the parties and respondents were illegally terminated. Hence the impugned award has been passed directing respondents without back-wages. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents were the employees of Rural Electrification Society therefore, the Labour court has committed an error in holding that the employer employee relationship exists between the parties and in support of his submission he has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Ram Pravesh Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 381 . 7. As against this learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned award. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that the labour court while recording the finding of employer employee relationship has duly appreciated the evidence led by both the parties. 7. As against this learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned award. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that the labour court while recording the finding of employer employee relationship has duly appreciated the evidence led by both the parties. The respondents were originally employed by the Rural Electrification Cooperative Society Manawar and their names also figured in the seniority list Ex.P-2 which has duly been admitted by DW-1 in his cross-examination. Labour court after taking into account the evidence and more particularly the statement of DW-1 has found that Rural Electrification Cooperative Society was doing the work of erecting the polls for extension of electrification which is mainly the work of respondents and the society was appointed by petitioner and the society has later on merged with petitioner. The petitioner's witness DW-1 has admitted that at the time of merger, 19 labourers were working in the society who have been absorbed in the petitioner's establishment but since the services of respondents were terminated before absorption, therefore, they were not absorbed. DW-1 has also admitted that if the respondents had continued in service on the date of absorption then they also would have been absorbed. It has also been found that the society was merged with lock, stock and barrel and its workers were absorbed on different post as per their eligibility in the petitioner's establishment. Originally the reference was made to the Labour court only against the society but on the basis of order passed by this court on 21/1/08 in WP No. 718/05 the present petitioner was impleaded and petitioner had led evidence which has duly been appreciated while passing the impugned award. It has also been noted that DW-1 had admitted that respondents had worked in the society and their name for absorption was not sent only because their services were terminated. He had also admitted that no reinstatement compensation was paid to respondents and their services were terminated on 16/6/95 by oral order and that they were also not paid one month's wages for the notice period. 9. The above analysis of evidence clearly reveals that society was working under the supervision of the petitioner and had the petitioner's services not illegally retrenched, they would have been absorbed in the petitioner's establishment. 10. 9. The above analysis of evidence clearly reveals that society was working under the supervision of the petitioner and had the petitioner's services not illegally retrenched, they would have been absorbed in the petitioner's establishment. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Labour court in finding that respondents are the workmen of petitioner. 11. So far as the judgment in the case of Ram Pravesh Singh (supra) is concerned, in that case it has been held that an employee is not entitled for absorption on the principle of legitimate expectation. But benefit of said judgment cannot be given to petitioner in view of admission of DW-1 that had the respondents continued in service of society they would also have been absorbed in petitioner's establishment and merely on account of their prior illegal termination they were not absorbed. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned award passed by the labour court does not suffer from any patent illegality. 13. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Supreme court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that High court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High court can exercise this power when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned award of Labour court is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. C.C. as per rules.