NAVIN FLOURINE INDUSTRIES Vs. GUJARAT RAJYA KAMDAR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Kunal Nanavati for Nanavati Associates for the appellant and Mr. M.S. Mansuri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7206 of 1996 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

(3.) IT appears that although the writ petition was described as one under both Article 226 and 227, the Industrial Tribunal whose order was sought to be quashed was not made a party, and at the same time, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the aforesaid award of the Industrial Tribunal . As indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the award after considering the evidence on record. Such being the position, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, in fact, exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as there was no scope for exercising the power of issue of writ of certiorari when the Industrial Tribunal itself was not made a party before the Court. Revaben wd/o Ambalal