VIKRAM CEMENT Vs. HEMANT KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order dated 6th February, 2006 of the learned Single Judge, passed Writ Petition No. 815/2006 and the connected petitions namely; 816, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 839, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865 and 866, all of 206. Since the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment aforesaid, this order shall govern the disposal of the abovesaid appeal also.

(2.) THE appellat floated a Scheme of VRS in the year 2001 and 2002. It is alleged that the petitioners in these petitions, after obtaining the benefit of VRS, assailed the termination of their service before the Labour Court, under section 31 (3) on the ground, inter alia, that they misled/coerced to accept the voluntary retirement and, therefore, they should be reinstated with full back wages from the date of their termination to the date of reinstatement. The Labour Court framed a number of issues in view of the pleadings of the parties, out of which Issues No. 4, 4 (a), 4 (b) and 4 (c) were framed on the point whether there has been cessation of the relationship of master and servant between the parties and whether the applicant before the Labour Court, was an employee within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act. Issue was also framed on the point whether the employees were estopped from filing the application, whether the application was maintainable under sections 31 (3), 61 and 62 of the MPIR Act, and, whether the application was barred by limitation.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel submitted that although the petition before the High Court was filed under Article 227 and the Writ Court has also treated the petition as under Article 227, it is not the label but the substance of the petition that is conclusive of the Article under which the High Court was approached. Learned counsel submits that on a fair reading of the petition, it becomes transparent that the petition was also under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have gone through the petition. It would be advantageous to reiterate that the Labour Court passed a Judicial order, against which the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal by a judicial order and since these two Courts are amenable to the power of superintendence of this Court, granted by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we are unable to concede to the suggestion that the petition and the judgment impugned, should be treated to be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against which this appeal is maintainable. The M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, bars an appeal against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Under these circumstances, the maintainability of these appeals, under the provisions of the said Adhiniyam of 2005, is barred. No doubt, the appeals could not have been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge, under Article 227 of the Constitution.