V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by an order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 18-8-2004 the appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal of this High court of Judicature at Bombay. Facts giving rise to this appeal stated briefly are as under :-

( 2 ) THE National Textile Corporation was the employer and the present respondent was the employee who was at the relevant time during the relevant period employed with Gold mohur Mills Limited which has been taken over by National Textile Corporation. After take over the Corporation therefore became the employer. During this employment the employee was charge-sheeted by the employer for certain alleged misconduct. The misconduct was held proved and the services of the appellant were terminated on 23-9-1980. Since the petitioner was not reinstated he filed an application under section 78 of the Bombay industrial Relation Act, 1946 contending that the enquiry held against the employee was illegal. The Labour Court on consideration of the material on record allowed the application of the petitioner holding that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved and therefore allowing the application of the petitioner and directed reinstatement with continuity of services with full back wages.

( 3 ) THE employer preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court challenging the order of Labour Court on several grounds. The Industrial Court accepted the challenges made by the employer and set aside the order of Labour Court by which the employee was granted reinstatement. It proceeded to dismiss the complaint filed by the employee.

( 4 ) THIS order of the Industrial Court was challenged before this Court by way of writ petition which was titled as Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was described as a petition also in the matter of application made before the labour Court and also in the matter of order passed by the Industrial Court between the employer and the employee. According to the high Court. Appellate Side Rules, 1960 such petition is liable to be heard by the learned single Judge. The matter was therefore assigned to the Court of the learned Single judge and the Learned Single Judge by the impugned order held that there was no jurisdictional or legal error committed by the industrial Court and therefore the order passed by the Industrial Court was maintained. It is this order dated 18-8-2004 which is questioned in this appeal filed under clause 15 of the bombay Letters Patent Appeal.

( 5 ) AT the outset the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was asked to establish the maintainability of this appeal in view of decided position in law in regard to maintainability of such appeals against orders passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel relied on several judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court of India and contended that this being a case instituted both under Articles 226 and 227 those decisions in relation to Article 227 will not apply in the present case and the appeal is maintainable. Such arguments are almost regularly made in this Court contending that letters Patent Appeal is maintainable in almost every case. In our opinion, it is therefore necessary that this contention is re-examined in details.

( 6 ) THIS Court was established by letters Patent issued by Queen of England for the Presidency Town of Bombay in 1865. This letters Patent or section defines the jurisdiction of various types of petitions instituted in this court by that chapter. One such jurisdiction was to hear an appeal from the order of Single judge of this Court which later on came to be popularly called as intra court appeal. Clause 15 created a right in a litigant to appeal covered by provisions thereunder.

( 7 ) IN order to decide the maintainability of an appeal under this clause it would therefore be necessary to examin