( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Short facts for disposal of the present appeal in nutshell are that the respondent-Chaudhary Popatbhai Revabhai (workman) was working as driver with the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" ). On 3rd June 1994 when the workman was on duty as driver and plying the vehicle between Vadnagar and Mehsana an accident took place, the respondent was arrested and was ultimately prosecuted. The Department/ establishment also initiated departmental proceedings. Before the Criminal Court decided the matter finally the workman was found guilty in the departmental inquiry and was awarded punishment of withholding of one increment. The said order had attained finality. The prosecution launched at the instance of the Police continued and culminated into conviction of said driver. The order was maintained upto High Court. It is not the say of the workman that the order passed by the High Court has been taken to the Apex Court or the said order has been set aside, modified or nullified by any higher court. After receiving the information about conviction of the respondent, the appellant-establishment taking advantage of Rule 81 of the Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations") governing the service conditions of the workman terminated his services. Being aggrieved by the said termination the respondent-workman took up the matter to the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No. 92 of 1999. After hearing both the sides the Labour Court vide its award dated 12. 11. 2002 set aside the order of termination and allowed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service without backwages for the intervening period. Being aggrieved by the outcome of the award the Corporation came to this Court in Special Civil Application NO. 11225 of 2003. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the Special Civil Application by his judgement dated 25. 11. 2003, the Corporation is before this Court under section 15 of the Letters Patent.

( 2 ) AT the very inception learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that as the learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the appeal at the instance of the present appellant is not maintainable. After giving our anxious consideration to the argument and on going through the records we find that the appellant before us never approached the learned Single Judge or this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The cause title of the writ application would show that the same was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Assuming that label does not decide the fate of the parties then too the learned Single was required to look into the facts of the matter especially the arguments of the present appellant that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction under the law to maintain the reference or make an award in case Regulation 81 of the Regulations was observed by the appellant-Corporation. From the records it would clearly appear that the appellant-Corporation has exercised its power under Regulation 81 of the Regulations and they were submitting before the Labour Court that the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction in the matter and the Labour Court despite such argument has observed that the present was a case of retrenchment. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the dispute and the scope of the arguments we are of the opinion that the present was a matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge even otherwise failed to exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, underestimating his own jurisdiction by simply observing that the present was a matter under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of the discussion aforesaid we hold that the appeal is maintainable.

( 3 ) LEAR