Point in Issue :
Whether appeal under Letters Patent is maintainable against the impugned order of Learned Single Judge passed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ.—This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an employer and is directed against an order dated 15th January, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12955 of 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ-application wherein the subject-matter of challenge was an award dated 26th February, 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal [Central], Ahmedabad, vide Ref (ITC) A. 139 of 2004 below Exh. 87 in Reference [LCB] No. 58 of 1989.

2. The Industrial Tribunal, by the award impugned, directed the employer to reinstate the respondent-workman in his original post with continuity of service without back wages.

3. Being dissatisfied, the employer preferred the writ-application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, as indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge modified the award by upholding the order of reinstatement but setting aside the order of grant of continuity of service in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Being dissatisfied, the employer has come up with the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

5. After hearing Mr. Naik appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that the writ-application was described as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and at the same time, the Industrial Tribunal was made a party. Mr. Naik tried to convince us that although the application was described as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in reality the same was an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the award itself by way of a writ in the nature of certiorari and the learned Single Judge, instead of quashing the entire award, partly modified the same. Mr. Naik . therefore, contended that the decision of this Court in the case of Revaben Wd/O Ambalal Motibhai vs. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel reported in 2013 (1) GLH 440 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

6. In the case of REVABEN [Supra], we discussed in detail the question of maintainability of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a combined application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In that context, we held that in order to maintain an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed in a writ-application, it must be established that the proceeding before the learned Single Judge was an original proceeding, and if the order impugned is an order passed by a Tribunal or Labour Court or a Civil Court, the same can be an original proceedings only if it was a fit case for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari otherwise, such order can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution in exercise of power of superintendence. We also relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chandra Rai reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044, where the Supreme Court highlighted the characteristic of the writ of certiorari and distinguished the same from the power of superintendence in the following way:

“24. The difference between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was well brought out in Umaji Keshao Meshram and others vs. Smt. Radhikabai and another, (1986) Supp SCC 401. Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article to tribunals as well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary Court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the b