Case Note & Summary
The case involves an industrial dispute between National Textile Corporation (SM) Ltd. (appellant/employer) and Devraj Chandrabali Pai (respondent/employee). The employee was dismissed from service on 23.9.1980 after a disciplinary enquiry found him guilty of misconduct. He filed an application under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 before the Labour Court, which allowed the application, holding the punishment shockingly disproportionate, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The employer appealed to the Industrial Court, which set aside the Labour Court's order and dismissed the employee's complaint. The employee then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge, by order dated 18.8.2004, upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding no jurisdictional or legal error. The employer appealed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Division Bench, at the outset, questioned the maintainability of the appeal. After hearing arguments, the Bench held that the appeal was not maintainable because the Single Judge's order was passed in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, and such an order is not a 'judgment' under Clause 15. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability - Clause 15 of Letters Patent - Appeal against order of Single Judge in writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 - Held that such an appeal is not maintainable as the order is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, following the settled legal position that no appeal lies against an order passed in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, arising from an industrial dispute.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal
- Clause 15 Letters Patent
- Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227
- Industrial Dispute
- Reinstatement
- Back Wages
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 64
Letters Patent Appeal No.41 of 2005 with Writ Petition No.5180 of 1996
V.G. Palshikar, D.B. Bhosale
Mrs.M.H. Doshi for appellant, Mrs.A.I. Helekar for respondent
National Textile Corporation (SM) Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against order of Single Judge in writ petition arising from industrial dispute regarding dismissal of employee.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (employer) sought to challenge the Single Judge's order upholding the Industrial Court's decision which had set aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back wages.
Filing Reason
Appellant was aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.8.2004 which upheld the Industrial Court's order setting aside the Labour Court's reinstatement order.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court allowed employee's application under section 78 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, holding dismissal shockingly disproportionate and ordering reinstatement with full back wages. Industrial Court set aside Labour Court's order and dismissed employee's complaint. Single Judge upheld Industrial Court's order.
Issues
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge passed in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel argued for maintainability of the appeal.
Respondent's counsel opposed maintainability.
Ratio Decidendi
A Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as such an order is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15.
Judgment Excerpts
At the outset the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was asked to establish the maintainability of this appeal in view of decided position in law in regard to maintainability of such appeals against orders passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant could not point out any distinction and therefore the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Procedural History
Employee filed application under section 78 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 before Labour Court. Labour Court allowed application and ordered reinstatement with back wages. Employer appealed to Industrial Court, which set aside Labour Court's order and dismissed employee's complaint. Employee filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 before Bombay High Court. Single Judge dismissed writ petition on 18.8.2004. Employer filed Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 on 19.9.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Section 78
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court: Clause 15
