STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MANGALIBEN NANJIBHAI PARMAR
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
STATE OF GUJARAT
Mangaliben Nanjibhai Parmar
Click here to view full judgement.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI J. -
(1.) BY way of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant original petitioner has challenged
the judgment and
order dated 10.4.2012 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.
4283 to 4300 of 2012 which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) IN the writ petitions, the appellant original petitioner has challenged the common judgement
and award dated 21.4.2011 passed by the In -charge
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dahod in Reference
(LCD) No.183 of 2008 (old No.246 of 2000),
Reference (LCD) No.184 of 2008 (old No.247 of
2000), Reference (LCD) No.185 of 2008 (old No.248 of 2000), Reference (LCD) No.187 of 2008 (Old
No.250 of 2000) to Reference (LCD) No. 193 of 2008
(Old No.256 of 2000), Reference (LCD) No. 195 of
2008 (Old No. 258 of 2000) to Reference (LCD) No. 202 of 2008 (Old No. 265 of 2000) whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the references
and granted lump sum compensation to the
workmen in lieu of reinstatement.
By the impugned judgement, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Though the
writ petition was titled as one under 226 of the
Constitution of India, no writ of certiorari was
issued by the learned Single Judge and, therefore,
the writ petition was essentially under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India as the learned Single Judge
has exercised the powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
The Five Judges Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation v. Firoze M. Mogal and another,
2014 GLH 1 has held as under : - "x) If the Special Civil Application is described as
one not only under Article 226 of the Constitution,
but also under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India and the Court or the Tribunal whose order is
sought to be quashed, is not made a party, the
application is not maintainable as one for the relief
of certiorari in the absence of the concerned
Tribunal or Court as party, but the same may be
treated as one under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. If the Court or Tribunal is not
impleaded as a party respondent in the main
petition, then by merely impleading such court or
tribunal for the first time in the Letters Patent
Appeal will not change the nature and character of
the proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
By merely impleading such a Court or Tribunal for
the first time in the LPA, the appeal could not be
said to be maintainable, if the proceedings before
the learned Single Judge remained in the nature of
supervisory proceedings under Article 227 of the
xi) If the learned Single Judge, in exercise of a
purported power under Article 227 of the
Constitution sets aside the order of Tribunal or
Court below and at the same time, the essential
conditions for issue of writ of certiorari are absent,
no appeal will be maintainable against such order
in view of the specific bar created under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent itself and such an order can
be challenged only by way of a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court."
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable.
Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed as not maintainable. We, however, make
it clear that we have otherwise, not gone into the
merit and the dismissal of this appeal will not stand
in the way of the appellant in seeking appropriate
remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance
with law. There shall be no order as to costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.