( 1 ) THESE Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order of learned single Judge in six appeals dated 27th of september, 1990 partially allowing the first appeals and substantially confirming the judgment and decree passed by learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in civil Suits filed by the appellants-workmen against the respondent-Ahmedabad municipal Corporation challenging the orders of dismissal/removal from service. The learned single Judge has substantially confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court holding that its jurisdiction is barred to enter into and decide question raised in the suits filed by the workmen against their employer-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. However, the learned single Judge quashed and set aside the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court on limited issue and has remanded the matters to the City Civil Court for considering whether declaration prayed for by each workman in the suit could be granted on the ground of want of competence on the part of Deputy municipal Commissioner to initiate inquiry, to frame charge-sheet and to appoint inquiry Officer.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by that part of the judgment of the learned single judge whereby he has held that the nature of disputes raised in each suit and the reliefs prayed for from the Court were such that they could be granted by Court/tribunal established under Industrial Disputes Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to that extent was impliedly barred, the appellants-workmen have preferred the aforesaid Letters Patent appeals, while Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has filed cross-objections challenging that part of the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge whereby he has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned City Civil Judge and has remanded the matter to the City Civil court for deciding as to whether declaration prayed for by each of the workmen can be granted on the ground of want of competence on the part of the deputy Municipal Commissioner to initiate the inquiry and to pass the order of dismissal/removal.

( 3 ) SINCE six Letters Patent Appeals and cross-objections filed therein by respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation are directed against the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 27/09/1990 and since important common question of law as to the jurisdiction of the civil Court in relation to industrial disputes is raised, the same are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 4 ) LA order to properly appreciate the common question of law as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court raised in these group of Letters Patent Appeals, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. We propose to divide these Letters patent Appeals in two groups : 1. L. P. A. Nos. 24, 26 and 29 of 1991, which are filed by appellants, who happen to be employees of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation serving in fire Brigade Department as Head Clerk, in Accounts Department and as junior Clerks in Health Department respectively, and 2. L. P. A. Nos. 25, 27 and 28 of 1991, which are filed by appellants-workmen who happen to be employees of Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, duly constituted and established under Bombay Provincial Municipal corporation Act, 1949.

( 5 ) THE appellants of the second group are admittedly covered by Standing orders framed by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in exercise of its power under Sec. 466 of the said Act and duly notified and approved by the authority under the provisions of Employment Standing Order Act 1946. On the other hand appellants/workmen of the first category are the workmen of Ahmedabad municipal Corporation for whom admittedly no Standing Orders are framed and notified. With respect to such appellant/ workman the stand of the respondent-Municipal Corporation is that in absence of any Standing Orders framed by it, such employees arc covered by Model Standing Orders framed under In