- (1.) Earlier also the matter was brought to this High Court, which was curiously described as Matters Under Article 227 No.714 of 2012. The court wonders why learned advocates are feeling shy in mentioning the words ''writ petition'. In several High Courts including Allahabad High Court and Bombay High Court petitions under Article 227 as well as 226 of the Constitution of India are called writ petitions. Paras 9 & 10 of Supreme Court authority reported in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, 1999 AIR(SC) 2423 noticing such practice at Bombay High Court are quoted below: "9. The respondent then filed Writ Petition No. 70 of 1991 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision rendered by both the Courts below. The said Writ Petition was also rejected by the learned Single Judge on 25th April, 1991. Respondent thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1991 before the Division Bench of the High Court at Nagpur under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The said appeal was heard by the Division Bench on merits. The Division Bench, by its orders dated 6.11.1996, held that the appellant had engaged in 'unfair labour practice' under item 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act and hence it was directed to pay back-wages and other benefits to the respondent from the date of the order of retrenchment i.e. 22.6.1982 till the date of his retirement as he had also got superannuated in the meantime. This order of the Division Bench of the High Court has been brought in challenge by the appellant- management by way of present appeal on special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 10.Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was in substance under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence was not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal. In order to support this contention, he took us to the relevant averments in the Writ Petition as well as the order of the learned Single Judge. He also relied on judgments of this Court to which we will refer hereinafter. His submission was that the learned Single Judge had exercised his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only and, therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that even if the appeal was maintainable the Division Bench had patently erred in taking the view that notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act was illegal and inoperative. It was also contended that the decision of the Division Bench that respondent's complaint was maintainable and that by passing the impugned order of the retrenchment, the appellant had resorted to 'unfair labour practice', was erroneous. It was further submitted that the Division Bench had erred in holding that the impugned discharge order was violative of Section 33 of the I.D. Act and that in any case pure finding of fact of courts below that the appellant was not guilty of any 'unfair labour practice' ought not to have been interfered with by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal."
(2.) Reference may also be made to Para-6 of Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., 2003 AIR(SC) 1561, which is also quoted below: "6. The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149(2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act (see National Insurance Co. Ltd, Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, 2002 7 SCC 456). This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a matter of an illustration, where a trial Court in a civil suit refused to grant temporary injunction and an appeal against refusal to grant injunction has been rejected, and a State enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under Section 115 CPC, in such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, where the State legislature has barred a remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 115 CPC, no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie for the reason that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution." May be in some High Courts (including Calcutta High Court) they are differently called. This new practice has created lot of confusion and has given rise to Bench hunting. At their convenience, advocates either mention Article 226 or Article 227. Labour matters, Rent Control matters, Consolidation and Revenue matters; any thing can be brought under Article, 227 matter, while for all these jurisdiction separate benches are allotted. Until four or five years before all matters either under Article 226 or Article 227 were described in this High Court as writ petition. The situation requires immediate remedial measures. Since the creation of this new jurisdiction learned advocates have started filing most frivolous cases, quite large in number (about 50 per day). The situation is fast approaching to the explosive level of Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitions.
(3.) Office is directed to place copy of this order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to bring to His Lordship's notice this newly created perverted situation/ nomenclature.;