2006 Supreme(Kar) 308

Karnataka High Court
Vishnu Ganapathi Naik - Appellant
Versus
Management of NWKRTC - Respondent
Decided On : 03-28-06
Writ Appeal : 3237 of 2005

Headnote:Constitution of India -Appeal against an order passed under -Article 227 -Appeal against an order passed under - Maintainability - Decision of Full Bench in ILR 2005 Kar 2503 applies - Appeal not maintainable. [H. L. Dattu and A. S. Bopanna, JJ]: In the instant case, it is not the case of the appellant that he had questioned the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under anyone of the exceptions stated by the Full Bench of the Court in Gurushanth Pattedar s case- ILR 2005 KAR 2503. Therefore, the order passed by the Single Judge necessarily is under Article 227 of the Constitution and therefore, no appeal would lie against the said order before this Court.

       Cases Referred: 202 ITR 222; 1999 ITR 832: 183 ITR 130. Followed: ILR 2005 Kar 2503.

       Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 -Maintainability of appeal -Section 4 -Maintainability of appeal - No appeal lies against an order passed by a single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 - Invocation of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 or under both the Articles - Repercussions of. See, Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227.

       Jurisdiction -Invocation of writ jurisdiction -Invocation of writ jurisdiction -Order passed under -Maintainability of appeal. See, Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Also see, Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Section 4.

       Judicial Decorum -Precedents -Precedents -Need of following decisions of co-ordinate Bench. Settled Principle: A High Court is bound to follow the decision of the same High Court. Judicial decorum and certainty of law require a Single Judge to follow the decision of another Single Judge and of a Larger Bench and even if for reasons to be stated, a different view was necessiated, the matter should be only referred to the Chief Justice for referring the question to a Larger Bench (202 ITR 222).

       Judicial Decorum -Pursuit of law -Pursuit of law -Limitations of the Bench - Demand as to judicial decorum. Settled Principle : [paste 1a)] (183 ITR 130). [H. L. Dattu and A. S. Bopanna, JJ]: One must remember that pursuit of the law, however gahnorous it is, has its own limitations on the Bench. In a multi-judge Court, the Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority. Judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that, where a Learned Single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a Larger Bench. It is subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure.

       Cases Referred: 202 ITR 222; 1999 ITR 832: 183 ITR 130. Followed: ILR 2005 Kar 2503.

       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Invocation of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 -Invocation of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 - When and how - Petition against an order of Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal - Appeal against the order in writ petition - When maintainable and when not. See, Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227.

       Cases Referred: 202 ITR 222; 1999 ITR 832: 183 ITR 130. Followed: ILR 2005 Kar 2503.

       Constitution of India -Invocation of jurisdiction under both the Articles -Articles 226 and 227 -Invocation of jurisdiction under both the Articles - Effect of - Course open to Court - Decision of Full Bench in ILR 2005 Kar 2503 applies. [H. L. Dattu and A. S. Bopanna, JJ]: The Full Bench of the Court at paragraph 4 of the judgment has observed that, the writ petitions are filed before this Court both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. When such is the case, the Court has to examine the allegations made in the petition and the relief claimed therein as to whether the petitioner wants the Court to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 or its original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and there can be cases where claim is made seeking to invoke the power of the High Court under both the Articles. The Court has not stopped there. It has given illustration of this type of cases by taking into consideration the awards passed by the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals. In that, the Court has observed, that, if the challenge is limited only to the correctness or otherwise of the award, then the petitioner is obviously invoking the powers of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, because the cause has not been initiated for the first time in this Court. Proceeding further, the Court has observed, that, if in addition to the correctness of the award, the petitioner were to challenge the vires of any other provision of the Industrial Disputes Act or of any other provision or the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court to pass the award or on the ground that it suffered from error of law apparent on the face of the record, he is invoking the power of the High Court under Article 226 as well and if such issues are decided by a Learned Single Judge, the decision will be deemed to have been rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 226. The Full Bench of this Court while concluding has stated that, "the right of appeal is a statutory right and where the statute has provided the right of appeal only against an order passed by the Learned Single judge of this Court in its original jurisdiction, it is to be held that no appeal lies against the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution."

       Cases Referred: 202 ITR 222; 1999 ITR 832: 183 ITR 130. Followed: ILR 2005 Kar 2503.