B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.:-

This Letters 1 Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22/2/2005 thereby allowing First Appeal No.696 of 2001. In the said First Appeal filed by the present respondent company, the judgment and order of the Employees' Insurance Court at Pune rendered on 4/5/2001 was under challenge and the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance (Court was pleased to dismiss Application (ESI) No.18 of 1993 filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ("the ESI Act" for short). It appears that the Sub-Regional office of the appellant Corporation at Pune had by its letter dated 17/8/1993 informed the company regarding the coverage of its establishment under the provisions of the ESI Act commencing from 27/11/1976 and the said decision of the Corporation was upheld by the Employees' Insurance Court at Pune. When First Appeal No.696 of 2001 was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22/2/2005, none had appeared for the appellant - Corporation but the appeal was allowed on merits by a reasoned order, which is under challenge in this LP A.

2. We had called upon the learned counsel for the Corporation to address us on the preliminary point of maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal and we have heard at length the learned counsel for the respective parties on this preliminary issue. Mr. Jaykar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Employees Insurance Court constituted under the ESI Act is not a Civil Court and, therefore, First Appeal No.696 of 2001 filed under Section 82 of the said Act cannot be treated on par with the First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently the bar of entertaining the Letters Patent Appeal as provided under Section 100-A as incorporated in the CPC from 1/7/2002 will not be attracted. As per Mr. Jaykar First Appeal No.696 of 2001 was filed under a special statute viz. the ESI Act and so long as there is no express bar from filing any further appeal under the said Act, the Letters Patent Appeal will be maintainable. In support of these submissions he has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in the case of P. S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. & ors. [AIR 2004 SC 5152] as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rahul Sharad Awasthi Vs. Ratnakar Trirnbak Pandit & ors. [2004 (5) Born. C.R. 50].

3. Mr. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent - company, on the other hand, urged before us that the LPA is not maintainable as it has been filed against an order passed on 22/2/2005 i.e. after 1/7/2002 and the bar provided under Section 100-A of CPC shall be applicable. As per him the Employees' Insurance Court has all the trappings of a Court and more particularly of a civil court. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Kamal Kumar Dutta Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. [(2006)7 SCC 613].

4. In the case of Rahul A. wasthi (Supra), the Full Bench of this Court did not deal with the issue of applicability of Section 100-A of CPC to the judgment and order of a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under a special statute. The Full Bench stated in this regard as under:

"We clarify that we are not concerned with the question whether section 100-A of the Code as substituted by the Amendment Act, 2002 is applicable to the appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under special statute and to that extent we do not express any opinion about the Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Bhenoy G. Dembla...."

5. In the case of P. S. Sathappan (Supra), the Constitution Bench (majority view) held that in view of the language of Section 104 (1) of the C.P.C., the Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable against the order passed