- (1.) The present Special Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11975 of 2001 filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed. It appears that the respondent-appellant herein (Silk and Kapda Karmchari Union) made an Application under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (in short "the 1978 Act") before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi (respondent No. 1), inter alia, raising grievance regarding non-payment of Wages, Bonus and Lay-off Compensation. By the Orders dated 8.3.2001 (filed as Annexures 6 and 7 to the aforesaid Writ Petition and appearing at Pages 79 and 82 respectively of the Paper-Book of the Special Appeal), the respondent No. 1 directed for recovery of the amounts mentioned in the said Orders towards Wages, Bonus and Lay off Compensation from the respondent No. 3 herein. The respondent No. 3 herein, thereupon, filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11975 of 2001 before this Court. As noted above, the learned Single Judge by the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2007 allowed the said Writ Petition and quashed the impugned Orders. The respondent-appellant herein (Silk and Kapda Karmchari Union), thereupon, filed the present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. We have heard Miss. Sumati Rani Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-appellant, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, and perused the record. Shri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the present Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, is not maintainable. Miss. Sumati Rani Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-appellant submits that the present Special Appeal would be maintainable under the provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.
(2.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in regard to the aforesaid preliminary objection. Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, which makes provisions for Special Appeal, provides as follows: 5. Special appeal: An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of Superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, we find that the Special Appeal shall lie to the Court (i.e. the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) from a judgment of one Judge of the Court.
(3.) However, such Special Appeal will not lie in respect of the following judgments/orders: 1. The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court; 2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction; 3. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court; 4. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction; 5. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by (i) the tribunal, (ii) Court or (iii) statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; 6. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of (i) the Government or (ii) any officer or (iii) authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.;