S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J. The short question involved in this case is-

"Whether while challenging the award passed by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court or the Industrial Tribunal, particularly in a case where no specific relief is sought for against the concerned Labour Court/ Industrial Court/Industrial Tribunal, such Labour Court/Industrial Court/ Industrial Tribunal is required to be joined as party respondent."

2. The learned Single Judge observed that there are two conflicting decisions rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat, reported in 2004 (1) GLR 729 and in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Pravin Joshi, reported in 2004 (4) GLR 3379.

3. When the matter was noticed by the Division Bench while referring to different decisions, the Division Bench came to a prima facie conclusion that one or the other judgment may hold good at appropriate case, which depends upon the nature of the petition i.e. whether the petition was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India or both under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. However, for proper appreciation and in view of the observations of the learned Single Judge, the matter has been referred to Larger Bench for hearing.

4. Writ petition, Special Civil Application No. 12382 of 2010 has been preferred by the Bhagyodaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and judgment passed by the Industrial Court dated 11-5-2010 in Appeal (I.C.) No. 115 of 2001 confirming the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in T. Application No. 779 of 1983. Both the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad and Labour Court, Ahmedabad have been impleaded as party respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.

5. The other writ petition, Special Civil Application No. 15308 of 2010 has been preferred by Natvar K. Patel under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Bhagyodaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. i.e. the petitioner in the other case has been impleaded as party-respondent. Neither the Industrial Court nor Labour Court, Ahmedabad has been impleaded as party, though prayer has been made to set aside the award dated 11-5-2010 passed by the learned Judge, Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal (I.C.) No. 115 of 2001.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties only on the question of maintainability of one or the other petition in absence of the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad or Labour Court, Ahmedabad. We have also noticed that in both the cases the judgment and order dated 11-5-2010 of the Industrial Court in Appeal (I.C.) No. 115 of 2001 has been challenged. In one of the writ petitions, the Industrial Court and Labour Court both have been impleaded as party-respondents. The question will also arise whether analogous case can be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of party, when the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad and Labour Court, Ahmedabad being party-respondents to the analogous case preferred against the same very judgment.

7. Let us refer to different decisions rendered by the Courts from time to time including this Court and the Supreme Court, as brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. Similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopichand Khoobchand Shanna v. Works Manager. Loco Shops, Western Railway, reported in AIR 1967 Guj. 27 : [1966 GLR 291], Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati, as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Division Bench made the following observations :

"3. ....Now, there can be no doubt that in a petition for relief under Art. 226, the Tribunal whose order is impugned in the petition must be made a party to the petition so that the writ sought from the Court can go against the Tribunal; but if the petition is for relief under Art. 227, it is well settled that the