SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK Vs. RASIKKUMAR DHIRAJLAL JANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr A.S. Vakil, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Sejal Mandavia, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

(2.) THESE Letters Patent Appeal have been filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 22 nd September 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court to the extent that it granted full back wages to the workman concerned. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-bank against the order passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) Nos.45 of 1999 and 74 of 1955 dated 5 th May 1999 and 31st July 1999 respectively by which the Labour Court reinstated the respondents - workmen in service with continuity of service and 100% back wages. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing writ petition. In the writ petition, the Industrial Tribunal was not impleaded as a party. Therefore, the writ petition was essentially a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THIS Court in case of Revaben wd/o Ambalal Motibhai and Ors. Vs. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others, reported in 2013 (1) GLH, 440, was called upon to decide whether an Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would be maintainable in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge really exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench, after analysis of various judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as Under :