JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant-Management of Magadh Gramin Bank has assailed, in this Letters Patent Appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.11.2020 in W.P.(L) No. 4008 of 2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge was allowed in part thereby setting aside the Award of regularisation of service directing the Management to reinstate the workman i.e. respondent no.2 in this case to his original post as Messenger-cum-Sweeper from the date of his termination. The learned Single Judge further directed that the concerned workman will not be entitled to get any back wages. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner is a Rural Bank constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, Punjab National Bank being the sponsored Bank. The workman-respondent No.2 was appointed/engaged as a Messenger-cum-Sweeper by the Management of writ petitioner-Bank w.e.f. 30.12.1988 on daily wages @ Rs.2/-per day. He was posted at Kpasia Branch and was at the disposal of Management of the Bank. He was discharging his duties as assigned by the Management allegedly with all sincerely and to the best of his abilities. There was no complaint related to his work from any quarters. The writ petitioner further claimed that in course of his work the said workman made several representations before the Management for regularization of his services as he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year, but his efforts remain in vain. All on a sudden, the Management-writ petitioner terminated respondent no.2-workman from services w.e.f. 24.01.1996 without giving any notice to him. Accordingly, the workman-respondent No.2 raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) which ended in failure and the Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad to decide the following terms of Reference: “Whether the action of the Management of Magadh Gramin Bank, Gaya in terminating the workman Shri Ram Niwas Singh w.e.f. 24.01.1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” Upon receipt of the reference, the officer presiding the Tribunal took up the matter after issuing notice and affording reasonable opportunity of filing the written statement, rejoinder, etc. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” Upon receipt of the reference, the officer presiding the Tribunal took up the matter after issuing notice and affording reasonable opportunity of filing the written statement, rejoinder, etc. and held as per the Award dated 20.02.2002 that the action of the Management of Magadh Gramin Bank, Gaya in terminating the workman on the aforesaid date is not justified. Consequently, the Management was directed to reinstate him to his original post and regularize his services as Messenger-cum-Sweeper from the date of his termination. However, it was further held that the concerned workman will not be entitled to any back wages. Aggrieved by the said Award for reinstatement and regularization of services of respondent No.2, the writ petitioner-Management has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was challenged on the ground that it was illegal, without jurisdiction and beyond the terms of reference. The appellant did not only take exception to the direction to the Management to regularize the services of respondent No. 2, but also questioned his reinstatement to the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper. 4. The Amicus appearing on behalf of the respondents before the learned Single Judge had argued that the writ petitioner-Management committed no illegality in terminating the services of the workman as he had worked under the writ petitioner-Management, w.e.f., 30.12.1988 to 23.01.1996, and during this period he worked continuously for more than 240 days in each calendar year. The termination, issued orally, was illegal and as such, learned Tribunal was right in deciding the reference in favour of the workman-respondent No.2. Reliance was placed at Annexure-3 & 4 to the writ petition, which are the recommendations made by the then Branch Manager of petitioner-Bank, wherein it is specifically mentioned that respondent No.2 had worked in the said Bank during the aforesaid period. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shashi Kanta Rishi [W.P. (C) No.225 of 2005]. 5. While deciding the issue at hand, learned Single Judge has relied upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also the judgment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra). Smt. Shashi Kanta Rishi [W.P. (C) No.225 of 2005]. 5. While deciding the issue at hand, learned Single Judge has relied upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also the judgment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra). In the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (Supra) this Court has held that the first significant decision on the issue appears to be in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the respondents were appointed as Chowkidars on muster-roll basis, and were being paid daily wages. Consequent to a decision of the Corporation that no casual worker would be engaged, the services of the respondents were terminated. The respondents moved the Industrial Tribunal alleging infraction of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, and succeeded. The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workmen, but it did not consider the issue of their regularisation though it was raised. The second respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held, in this case, thereafter, raised another industrial dispute seeking, inter alia, regularisation of his services. He also filed a writ petition, challenging the earlier Award of the Industrial Tribunal, complaining that their issue of regularization had not been considered therein. Ultimately, the High Court remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal and to decide the issue of regularization of the said workmen. The Tribunal, adjudicating the remand, held that the workmen were deemed to have been regularised, on completion of three years of service with the Corporation. The Corporation moved the writ Court, there against, but the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the workmen were entitled to regularization. The Corporation appealed, further, to the Supreme Court, citing, in its support Umadevi (supra). The workmen, per contra, sought to contend that Umadevi (supra) did not deal with the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, which was a species sui generis. The Supreme Court, while accepting the fact that powers of the industrial adjudicator are not in issue in Umadevi (supra), held, nonetheless, that "the foundational logic" in Umadevi (supra) was based on Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, while accepting the fact that powers of the industrial adjudicator are not in issue in Umadevi (supra), held, nonetheless, that "the foundational logic" in Umadevi (supra) was based on Article 14 of the Constitution. Having said that, the Supreme Court clearly held, in conclusion, that "the industrial adjudicator can modify the relief, but that does not dilute the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi case about the regularization." It is not possible to understand this judgment as categorically pronouncing the issue of the power of the Industrial Tribunal to direct regularization on the way, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held. 6. Further, the learned Single Judge took into the consideration the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BSNL Vs Bhurumal, (2014) 2 SCC (L & S) 373, to the effect that the findings of facts are not to be interfered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by the Hon’ble Supreme in exercise of Article 136 of the Constitution. Interference is permissible, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held, only in case these findings are totally perverse or based on no evidence. Insufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground to interdict these findings as it is not the function of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to reappreciate the evidence. It is because of this reason that the learned counsel for the appellant made frontal attack on the findings of the court order of challenge and endeavoured to demonstrate that there was perversity in the finding by CGIT which is glossed over by the High Court as well. 7. In this case also learned counsel for the appellant would draw attention of the Court to the factual aspects of the case and would submit that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in not interfering in the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is perverse and incorrect, however, we find that the workman has approached the Industrial Tribunal by adopting the proper procedure of reference made by the Government for appropriate redressal to decide whether the Management action in terminating the workman with effect to 24.01.1996 is legal and justified and to what relief the workman is entitled to. 8. 8. The learned Single Judge has taken a correct view of the matter and held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide that the termination of the workman was illegal and therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper. However, the learned Single Judge was also of the view that as there is no vacant sanctioned post the question of regularistion will not be appropriate. 9. Writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e. when a subordinate court/tribunal is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction -by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction – by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. A writ of certiorari is not to be issued to correct mere errors of law or fact unless it is established before the Court that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court in exercise of issuance of writ of certiorari will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of the evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (We have relied upon the reported case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 though we are aware that the ratio decided in the aforesaid case that a writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by the Civil Court in a civil suit between the parties is maintainable has been subsequently overruled by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 . The observations made in the case of Surya Dev Rai (supra) regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to Article 226 for issuance of the writ of certiorari as well as supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution have not been overruled by the later judgment and still have the force of law). 10. Thus it is clear that the learned Single Judge has came to the conclusion that the order for regularistion of the workman cannot be passed as there was no vacancy then no substantive vacancy, but at the same time since he has worked for more than 240 days each year in between 30.12.1988 to 23.01.1996 he should be reinstated to the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper. 11. We find no patent illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requiring our interference and in that view of the matter, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12. There shall be no orders as to costs. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 14. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.