Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions leading being writ petition No. 2235 (S/S) of 2004 were decided on 12.4.2013 by this Court. The opposite parties preferred special appeals bearing Nos. 292/903/907/295/294/293/905 and 904 of 2013 before the Division Bench of this Court.
(2.) AFTER hearing the parties the Division Bench passed orders on 30th July, 2014. The operative portion of the order is quoted below: - "Since no other point has been raised by the appellant except the above, we are not entering into other aspect of the matter, which may prejudice rights of either of the parties and we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge with the request to decide the issue Nos. 1 and 2 as formulated in the judgment and order dated 19.2.2009 by giving cogent reasons within a maximum period of six months, if possible." As is evident the matter was remitted to the Single Judge dealing with service single matters but eventually that Court by judicial order has nominated this Court to decide the matter in the light of the direction of the Division Bench.
(3.) IT is obvious that three questions were formulated by the Division Bench to be answered by the Single Judge, who decided only one question i.e. the third and last question while declining to answer the first and second question. Before going into the merits of the case once again, it will be necessary to examine as to why three questions were formulated to be answered by the Single Judge. The paragraph in which these questions have been formulated needs to be reproduced: - "Lastly, the learned Counsel submitted that if this Court is of the view that more specific finding is needed, the said two issues may be remitted to the Writ court for specific finding with in a specific time framework keeping in mind the provisions of Order 41, Rule 25 C.P.C. A perusal of the Judgment and order passed in Special Appeal No. 510 of 2004 reveals that when the writ petitions of the appellants of that case was dismissed on the ground that the appellants are workmen and, therefore, they had a remedy to go to the labour court or tribunal, as the case may be. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 2.11.2004, the appellants therein filed Special Appeal No. 510 of 2004, referred to above. The Division Bench headed by Justice H.L. Gokhale, Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was) allowed the Special Appeal vide judgment and order dated 19.2.2009 and remitted the Special Appeal with a direction that the learned Single Judge will decide the following three issues, which are as under: - "1. As to whether the appellants are workmen or not? 2. In the event, he comes to the conclusion that the appellants were not workmen, still whether the Court should exercise writ jurisdiction or not? 3. In the event the Court decides the question whether the termination was bad and in that case what relief should be given to the appellants -;