(1.) The matter has been placed before this Bench on a reference made by the Division Bench of this Court on 3.5.2017, wherein following question was referred for the opinion of this Court:
(2.) Since the issue is purely legal, therefore, the facts as are necessary for the decision of the present reference alone are given in brief. The said question arises out of the fact that the workman, the present appellant, raised an industrial dispute under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court declined the reference, inter alia, on the ground that the reference has been sought after delay without any reasonable cause. A writ petition directed against the said order has been dismissed by the learned Single Bench on 16.1.2017 for the reason that the appellant has offered no explanation that the industrial disputes survive for 12 years. It is aggrieved by the said decision; the appellant has filed the present appeal under Sec. 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The relevant provision reads as under :-
(3.) The question as to whether an intra Court appeal would lie against an order passed under Art. 226 and/or 227 has been examined by Full Bench of this Court in Jaidev Siddha (Dr.) and others Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha and others reported as 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 wherein, the expression "in exercise of original jurisdiction" appearing in Sec. 2 (1) of the Act came up for interpretation in conflicting view of the Division Bench judgments of this Court, the Court held that the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be examined and that Sec. 2 of the Act cannot be given a restricted and constricted meaning because an order passed in a writ petition can tantamount to an order under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Court held as under:-