JUDGMENT : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. All these Letters Patent Appeals have genesis in common oral orders, both dated 27.06.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No.6662/2018 and connected petitions, wherein challenge was to the impugned Awards dated 20.05.2017, passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, denying reinstatement and back-wages to the petitioners and in lieu thereof, directing the respondent Bank to pay compensation as mentioned in the respective Awards. Even the alternative prayer made to modify the Awards by enhancing the compensation was not acceded to. 2. The services of the original writ petitioners who were serving in different capacities in clerical cadre with respondent Memon Cooperative Bank Limited came to be terminated on 22.07.2009 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as contended by them. The learned Judge thought it fit and convenient to record facts of Special Civil Application No.6664/2018 since issues involved were identical. Likewise, in other writ petitions also, prayers were made to reinstate the employees with continuity of service or alternatively, to enhance compensation so awarded by the Labour Courts. 3. In the writ petitions filed by employees, respondent No.3 Bank was a party and summons of the Court was to be served through its Liquidator. 4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 Bank having gone in liquidation, a Liquidator was appointed and by invoking powers under Section 35(A) of the Banking Regulations Act, the Reserve Bank of India directed to take corrective measures. 5. By referring to various decisions relied on by learned advocates for the parties, the learned Single Judge noticed that the petitions were bereft of merit since the Labour Court had found that respondent Bank was closed and compensation that was awarded did not warrant any interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Before us, Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in all these appeals would contend that the services of the appellants original petitioners came to be illegally terminated without following the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as the Liquidator so appointed was an employee of the Bank of Baroda, who took over the management and administration of respondent Bank. That, many other regular employees and even daily rated employees of respondent Bank were allowed by Bank of Baroda to serve on the establishment and the appellants had served for about seven to eight years, as such, the action of respondents No.2 and 3 of illegally terminating their services ought to have been held illegal by passing consequential orders of reinstatement and back-wages with continuity of services or at least, enhancing compensation suitably depending on total years of service rendered by them. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on some orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court in the backdrop of similar situation. 7. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned advocate for respondents would contend that if the Awards passed by the Labour Court are perused, the fact of respondent No.3 Bank having gone into liquidation remains undisputed. In addition to above, no record is made available about so-called merger of respondent No.3 with Bank of Baroda and even if in case any arrangement is worked out with respondent No.3 and Bank of Baroda, no further material appears on record so as to reveal whether Bank of Baroda has taken over any liability of respondent No.3 Bank, including consequence of pending litigation before any fora. Once the Bank has gone into liquidation, dues of workers, if any, deserves to be considered in accordance with law and at the most, the Awards can be enforced or the appellants will have to lodge their claim before the Liquidator, if deemed proper and accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is warranted. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made hereinabove vis-a-vis orders impugned in these Appeals, we are of the view that respondent No.3 Bank having gone into liquidation and Liquidator having been appointed and the Reserve Bank of India having invoked its powers under section 35(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, the direction contained in the Awards of the Labour Court of awarding lump-sum compensation cannot be said to be contrary to law and not accepting the prayer of the writ petitioners by quashing and setting aside such an award or enhancing the compensation in any manner does not warrant of this Court at this stage. 9. 9. It goes without saying that as regards any remedy available to the petitioners to enforce the Awards of the Labour Court or to agitate their grievances independently in any other proceedings, including that against Bank of Baroda, we reserve such liberty and order passed in these Appeals shall have no bearing on such decision that may be taken by the appellants original petitioners. 10. Barring the above, in absence of merit, the appeals are disposed of as dismissed.