JUDGMENT :

B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.

IA No. 1 of 2021:

1. This application has been filed by the appellants seeking review of the judgment dated 4.1.2021, passed in WA No. 143 of 2017, arising from an order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 4159 of 2015.

2. Vide judgment dated 4.1.2021, the appeal preferred by the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) has been dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld.

3. Though several pleas have been taken in the review application, Mr. C.R. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel has confined his arguments to the following grounds:

(a) This Court, having noted down several decisions relied upon by the review petitioner in Paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment, did not consider the ratio laid down in the said decisions in the correct perspective inasmuch as the judgment in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual, (1969) 1 SCC 585, was disregarded and the Court failed to consider that a writ of mandamus lies only to secure performance of a public duty and not performance of obligations which are of a private character.

(b) There are contradictions in Para 28 of the judgment with regard to the Doctrine of lifting/piercing the corporate veil. Having said that lifting of the corporate veil has a limited application in matters relating to tax frauds, the Court has returned a finding that such a doctrine has been applied even in disputes relating to workman/employee in several reported decisions of the Supreme Court as discussed in Para 28 of the impugned judgment and a contrary finding has been given that there is "clear admission by respondent No. 2 that it is a public sector undertaking" and it has further been held that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil is not of much relevance in the instant case.

(c) While noting down the contentions raised on behalf of the review petitioner in Para 8 of the judgment, the Court has erred in observing that "the factors mentioned in K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, (2015) 4 SCC 670, are inapplicable to the facts of the present case". Infact, it is the stand of the review petitioner that the factors mentioned in the said case are applicable to the present case.

(d) The judgment in Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya, has been disregarded without returning any detailed findings.

(e) The issues framed in Para 10 of the judgment do not cover the main issue i.e., whether a writ of mandamus would lie in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. In support of his submission that the review application as filed, is maintainable, learned Senior Advocate has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club, AIR 2005 SC 592 : (2005) 4 SCC 741, specifically drawing attention of this Court to Paras 89 to 92 of thereof.

5. Per contra, Mr. Narendra Agrawal, party-in-person submitted that a writ of certiorari has been prayed for by him in the writ petition for calling for the records and setting aside the impugned termination order, which is illegal, unsustainable and unconstitutional. He has urged that the Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction, rightly affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that his employment is not contractual in nature, but a permanent employment.

6. In his rejoinder arguments, learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioner contended that in the instant case, since issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari has been prayed for by the respondent/writ petitioner, the Court could not have issued a writ of mandamus declaring that he is a public servant and is a permanent employee of the appellants.

7. The scope of review jurisdiction of the High Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and in writ petitions has come up for consideration" before the Supreme Court and several High Courts on many occasions. It is well settled that the error, if any, in the ord