JUDGMENT 1. These intra-Court appeals seek to call in question a learned Single Judge's order dtd. 24/2/2023 whereby appellant's W.P.Nos.39947/2017 c/w W.P.No.20186/2016 (L-RES) have been dismissed. The challenge in those writ petitions essentially was to the award dtd. 28/4/2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.77/2009 and to the award dtd. 27/11/2015 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.11/2009. The net effect of these awards and the impugned order is the reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages. 2. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant -Management vehemently argued that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be voided mainly on two grounds: going by the pleadings of the parties and evidentiary material placed on the record of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, there was no case of retrenchment at all; the workmen themselves were at fault in not reporting back to duty despite repeated letters and requests; in any event, having on their own stayed away from employment, the workmen are not entitled to the award of full back wages. This aspect, according to him, having not been properly appreciated, there is error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting it being struck down. In support of his contention, he presses into service a few decisions of the Apex Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentworkmen vehemently opposes the appeals making submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and also the orders made by the Labour Court and the CGIT. He draws our attention to the fact that out of 47 workmen, 5 have expired and all others except 10 workmen who are reinstated, have been superannuated. He further contends that the intra-court appeals are not maintainable in view of a Seven Judge Bench decision of this Court in TAMMANNA vs RENUKA, ILR 2009 KAR 1207. Even otherwise, according to him, this Court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the matter when the CGIT and a learned Single Judge having examined all the aspects, have granted relief to the workmen. 4. Even otherwise, according to him, this Court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the matter when the CGIT and a learned Single Judge having examined all the aspects, have granted relief to the workmen. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant -Management argues that despite written requests, the workmen did not turn back to employment and therefore theirs is not a case of retrenchment at all and as a consequence, no back wages could have been awarded, more particularly when they are reinstated, 10 of them actually and others notionally. To substantiate this point, he draws attention of the Court to the letters dtd. 16/1/2009 and 6/2/2009, whereby, the workmen were asked to come back to duty and be in the employment, which they did not accede to. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Trade Union and the workmen contends that without any justification whatsoever his clients were removed from service and they were not permitted to work at all; even otherwise, they were asked to give a letter of regret as a precondition for being permitted to regain entry to employment. According to him, it is a text book case of retrenchment done contrary to law and therefore the back wages have been rightly awarded. (b) The letter dtd. 16/1/2009 i.e., Ex.M-28 sent by the Management to the workman reads as under: "You have been unauthorisedly absenting yourself from duty with effect from 7/1/2009 to till date. This is a Newspaper industry, which has precise deadlines for each operation and the Management cannot afford to condone absenteeism which will cut at the very root of the survival of the organization. Due to your unauthorised absence from 7/1/2009, the Management is constrained to inform that you have lost your lien on your appointment/employment. By a copy of this letter, we are advising the Accounts Department to settle your account and you are requested to collect your dues, if any, on any working day during the working hours of the office." The vehement submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management that the text of the above letter does not amount to retrenchment is bit difficult to countenance. If the letter were to indicate only "loss of lien" on the employment and nothing more, perhaps there was scope for accepting such an argument more particularly in view of the decision of the Apex Court in MOTI RAM DEKA vs G.M., NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY, AIR 1964 SC 600 . (This case related to Service Jurisprudence, is kept in view). However, the text of the letter is not that innocuous; it tells the workman that his dues are being settled and during working hours of the office, he can collect the same. In construing letters of the kind, one cannot keep his common sense in cold storage. The letter should be construed in its plain meaning as would be drawn by the addressee workman who may be a stranger to the grammar school. Learned counsel representing the workmen is more than justified in contending that this letter has cut the umbilical chord of employment and thereby brought about the retrenchment, sans compliance of pre-conditions enacted by law. (c) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Management drew our attention to the other letters dtd. 6/2/2009 at Annexure-B series. All they have the following English text: "This has reference to your letter dtd. 21/01/2009 in reply to our letter dtd. 16/1/2009. The various statements made in your letter are untrue and incorrect and do not justify your unauthorized absence. However, without prejudice to our right to take disciplinary action against you, we hereby direct you to report for duty immediately." Mr.Kasturi, on the basis of text of these letters, argues that the workmen were directed to report back for duty and they having failed to comply with the same, there is no case for retrenchment compensation; he tells that it is a case of voluntary abandonment of employment. This too, we do not agree with. Reasons are not far to seek: After the letter dtd. 16/1/2009 was sent, the workmen had submitted their reply thereto, making certain allegations as to they being required to give a "regret letter". Had they given one, that would have been a case of admission of guilt. Added, the Management's letter lacks bona fide inasmuch as it does not recall the earlier letters which mentioned about "loss of lien' and had directed the workmen to get their service benefits settled. These benefits are nothing but the terminal benefits of employment. Had they given one, that would have been a case of admission of guilt. Added, the Management's letter lacks bona fide inasmuch as it does not recall the earlier letters which mentioned about "loss of lien' and had directed the workmen to get their service benefits settled. These benefits are nothing but the terminal benefits of employment. Strangely, these letters do not make even a cursory reference to the earlier letters asking the employees to take the terminal benefits. The canons of labour jurisprudence built precedent by precedent over the years, require industrial managements to conduct themselves tall and bona fide qua the workmen who happened to be a vulnerable Sec. of society, whom the law seeks to protect. It hardly needs to be stated that they cannot act as the East India Company of the byegone era. The "hire and fire" policy of yester century has been reduced to a footnote in the history of Labour Law. (d) Learned counsel appearing for the Management next argues that the conduct of workmen coupled with the letter correspondence of the Management, demonstrates a prima facie case of shared culpability and therefore full back wages could not have been awarded. The appellant is not an ordinary industrial establishment; it is a part of the Fourth Estate. Mr.Kasturi rightly extolled certain appreciable events of history with which the appellant is creditably associated; however, that is not much relevant to the adjudication of case at hand. The arguable elements of culpability qua the workmen are too frugal to be counted. It is more so because the stand sought to be canvassed before us, does not earn credence by the pleadings of the Management taken up before the Labour Court, the Industrial Tribunal and before the learned Single Judge. We do not find any justification whatsoever for the Management to have kept away from the statutory conciliation proceedings. Learned Single Judge has rightly made some comments in the impugned order in this regard. It is not the case of the Management that it has any financial constraints or such other difficulties that justify its claim for denial of retrenchment compensation. The Apex Court time and again has held that the provisions of 1947 Act inter alia regulating retrenchment are mandatory vide RAJKUMAR vs. DIRECTOR Of EDUCATION, (2016) 6 SCC 541 . It is not the case of the Management that it has any financial constraints or such other difficulties that justify its claim for denial of retrenchment compensation. The Apex Court time and again has held that the provisions of 1947 Act inter alia regulating retrenchment are mandatory vide RAJKUMAR vs. DIRECTOR Of EDUCATION, (2016) 6 SCC 541 . Such a claim cannot be readily granted just for an askance; a special case needs to be made out for that and no such case is made out before us. That being the position, the plea of shared culpability does not merit countenance. (e) There is yet another aspect namely, the maintainability of intra-Court appeals. What were challenged before the learned Single Judge were the outcome of the proceedings held by the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Obviously, the learned Single Judge had examined the matter in the limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227, the other provision namely, Article 226 having been ornamentally employed by the Management in the writ petitions. That being the position, we are afraid that a deeper examination of the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be ventured by us, assuming that the appeals are maintainable. In TAMMANNA supra, it has been held that ordinarily such appeals are not maintainable as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Labour. Even otherwise, the appeals being continuation of the original proceedings, they have the limitations which the learned Single Judge himself had in deciding the writ petitions. After all, the judicial review focuses the decision making process and not the decision itself vide SUSHIL KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA, (2022) 3 SCC 203 . This applies to the writ appeals, as well. We also noted that only 10 of the workmen are reinstated, many others having retired by attaining the age of superannuation and the rest having been laid to rest in peace, in the long drawn legal battle. The decisions cited by both the sides have been duly considered by the learned Single Judge who has crafted the impugned judgment in an appreciable way and therefore, we have not burdened our judgment with the duplication of the said rulings. In the above circumstances, these appeals being devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly are dismissed, costs having been made easy.