STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MANGALIBEN NANJIBHAI PARMAR
LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-92
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 06,2014

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
Mangaliben Nanjibhai Parmar Respondents

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 Constitution. 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.