- (1.) THE workman being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, in k. I. D. No. 403/2003 dated 13. 7. 2004 had filed a petition in W. P. No. 48999/2004 before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Learned Single Judge by his order dated 27. 7. 2005, has rejected the writ petition and has confined the award passed by the industrial Tribunal, Hubli. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order is questioned by the workman in this appeal.
(2.) THE matter is posted before the Court for preliminary hearing. After hearing the Learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gurushanth Pattedar Vs Mahaboob shahi Kulburga Mills and Another (ILR 2005 KAR 2503 ). In the said decision, the Court at paragraph 4 has observed as under: "4. Petitions are very often filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. When such is the case the Court will have to examine having regard to the nature of allegations made in the petition and the relief claimed therein as to whether the petitioner wants the High Court to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 or its original jurisdiction under Article 226. There can be cases where a claim is made seeking to invoke the power of the High Court under both the Articles. For instance, an award of a Labour Court is sought to be challenged in a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. If the challenge is limited only to the correctness of the award, the petitioner is obviously invoking the power of this Court under article 227 because the cause has not been initiated for the first time in this Court. It had arisen before the Labour Court who gave its decision thereon in the form of an award, the correctness of which is challenged. If in addition to the correctness of the award the petitioner were to challenge the vires of any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act or any other provision or the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court to pass the award, or on the ground that it suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record, he is invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 as well and if such issues are decided by a Learned Single Judge the decision will be deemed to have been rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 226. This aspect has also been examined by their Lordships in Umaji's case (supra) in paragraph 106 of the judgment. However, the case before us is not a case of such a type because the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant very fairly conceded that he is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Learned single Judge. "
(3.) THE Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax Vs B. R. Constructions (202 ITR 222) has observed that "a High Court is bound to follow the decision of the same High Court. Judicial decorum and certainty of law require a Single Judge to follow the decision of another Single Judge and of a Larger Bench and even if for reasons to be stated, a different view was necessitated, the matter should be only referred to the Chief justice for referring the question to a Larger Bench. " the Madras High Court in the case of Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income tax (199 ITR 832) has observed that "the binding effect of a decision does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered therein or not, provided the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided. " the Supreme Court in the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and Others Vs Collector, Thane, maharashtra and Others (183 ITR 130) has made some pertinent observation and the same cannot be placed better than quoting verbatim what was stated therein: "one must remember that pursuit of the law, however galmorous it is, has its own limitations on the Bench. In a multi-judge Court, the Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority. Judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that, where a Learned Single Judge or a division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a Larger Bench. It is subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure. ";