( 1 ) IN these two applications, the learned Counsel appearing for the opponents have taken up a preliminary objection against initiation of contempt proceedings to the effect that the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal are not Courts subordinate to the High Court and hence contempt proceedings for non-compliance of any order or award of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal were not maintainable. They have placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Muljibhai Bhurabhai Vs. Upendra Vyas, Manager, reported in 2000 (2) GLH 768, in which it was held that though Labour Courts/industrial Tribunals have the trappings and attributes of a "court" and they were amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court, they are not `courts as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and therefore proceedings for breach of any order or award made by such Courts and Tribunals are not maintainable under the provisions of that Act. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Alahar Co-operative Credit Services Society Vs. Sham Lal, reported in 1995 (2) GLH 550, in which the Honble Supreme Court had observed that the Labour Court was not a Court subordinate to the High Court in the sense that the Contempt of Courts Act makes provision requiring the High Court to deal with contempt of its subordinate Courts and had struck off the contempt proceedings before the High Court. 1. 1 the Division Bench in Muljibhai Bhurabhais case, followed the decision in Alahar Co-operatve Credit Service Societys case and held that the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals were not Courts within the meaning of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was held that even if the Labour Court performed judicial functions and the Presiding Officers formed part of judicial service and the judges of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal belong to the judicial service of the State, that will not make the Labour Court and the Tribunal a "court" so as to attract the provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was further held that merely because the High Court exercises powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India over the Labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals and they are amenable to writ jurisdiction, that would not make them subordinate Courts as contemplated by the said Act. It was observed that if that reason is accepted, all the forums constituted under the Central or Local Acts shall have to be declared as "courts". It has been contended that the decision of the Supreme Court in Alahar Co-operative Credit Service Societys case (supra) was directly on the point dealing with the precise issue as to whether the Labour Court was a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and therefore, the decision was binding on this Court and has been rightly followed by a Division Bench of this Court. It was submitted that if a different view is thought of, then the matter ought to be referred to a larger Bench of the Court. 1. 2 the learned Counsel for the respondents in support of their submissions placed reliance also on the following decisions:- (A) State of A. P. Vs. V. C. Subharayudu and ors. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 516 was relied upon to contend that this matter should be referred to a larger bench if a view different from the one taken in Muljibhais case is likely to be taken. From para 10 of the judgement, it would be noticed that it was contended before the Supreme Court that since the judgement of the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by SAS Accountants had been affirmed in appeal earlier by the Division Bench, the other Division Bench could not have dismissed the petitions and set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge and in context of this contention the Supreme Court said that if the second Division Bench was of the opinion that it had to take a different view than that taken by