- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J.
(2.) MR. Lok Pal Singh and MR. Nanak Chand Gupta, the learned coun sel for the respondents have raised a pre liminary objection about the maintainability of the Special Appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment was passed in a writ petition filed against the award of the Labour Court and as such, the present Special Appeal is not maintainable. Respondent No. 1 Damodar Prasad filed the writ petition for the fol lowing reliefs : "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the termination order dt. 10-3- 1998, order dt. 8-9-2000 and or der dt. 28-5-2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun - respondent no. 1. ii. pass any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present cir cumstances of the case. iii. award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. " Thus, the petitioner, in sub stance, impugned the orders of his termination and the order of the Labour Court affirming the same.
(3.) RULE 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court RULEs, as appli cable to the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), reads as follows : "5. Special appeal.- An appeal shall He to the Court from a judg ment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdic tion in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the su perintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the ex ercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdic tion 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 arbitra tor, 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 enu merated in the State List or the Con current List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Gov ernment or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of ap pellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judg. " In the case of Ajeet Singh Patwa Vs. The District Judge, Pithoragarh and others reported in 2005 (2) UD 659, it was held in para 4 as under : "4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is clear from the above-quoted provisions that a special appeal shall not lie from an order passed by the Single Judge in the exercise of ju risdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of In dia in respect of any judgment of a Court made in the exercise of jurisdic tion 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. The order impugned in this special appeal was passed by the Single Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in respect of a judgment of the District Court, Pithoragarh made in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the prelimi nary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 is upheld. The special appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. ";