Important Point
Right to initiate any proceedings or any other rights of superintendence are generally arising from statute.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Pursuant to judgment and order dated 30.06.2015, this Court has while allowing Civil Application No. 98 of 2011, as per relief claimed in para 5, directed the petitioner No. 1 to delete the name of petitioner No. 2 from the petition. However, so far as prayer to delete respondent No. 2 i.e. Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara is concerned, considering that, it is altogether a different issue than considering the presence of petitioner No. 2 as a litigant and at the relevant time, because of existence of different judgments on such issue, both by the division bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court and more particularly when one matter is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court on such issue, this Court has thinking it proper to avoid from scrutinizing legality and validity of joining such respondent No. 2 in the main petition, partly allowed the Civil Application with observations that the issue regarding respondent No. 2 can be taken care of while deciding main petition.

2. However, now pursuant to judgment and order dated 06.07.2015 by the Honourable Supreme Court, i.e. just after judgment and order dated 30.06.2015 in this matter as referred herein above, the Honourable Supreme Court has, in Civil Appeal No. 2347 of 2015 between Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinhiji vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2015 (9) SCC 1 while considering the maintainability of the Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) dealt with all relevant issues including joining presiding officers of such lower Courts and tribunals in such writ petition and held that in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such Court whose orders are under challenge or its presiding officer are not required to be impleaded though High Court can call for the record of the case.

2.1 Therefore, considering the above situation, both the parties have argued at length that this review petition, so as to decide that whether prayer which was kept pending in Civil Application 98 of 2011 for deciding it along with Special Civil Application, can be allowed at this stage or not.

3. For the purpose, heard applicant, Party-in-person and learned advocate Mr. Vinayakrao S. Desai, respondent No. 1 in the main petition and learned advocate Mr. Binay Benagara for Trivedi & Gupta Associates for respondent - Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., original petitioner in main Special Civil Application challenging the order dated 23.06.2010 by respondent No. 2 - Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara; whereby, tribunal has directed the petitioner to consider the appointment of respondent as per the Rules as Research Assistant and declare that he is entitled to all the benefits as Research Assistant.

4. Respondent No. 1 Mr. Desai who is also an advocate has strenuously explained that why and how such litigations are preferred and thereby, how corporate bodies are trying to take disadvantage of judicial process and thereby, making mockery of law as well as judicial proceedings. His submissions are as under:

(1) Respondent No. 2 - Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara is an independent judicial authority;

(2) Industrial Tribunal is to be treated as a Civil Court;

(3) impugned order is purely judicial order by judicial authority and it is not by quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority;

(4) impugned order is relating to dispute between two private parties and, therefore, in any manner it can never be termed as public dispute but it is purely a private dispute;

4.1 In support of his such submission he is relying upon following decisions:

(1) State of Maharashtra vs. Labour Law Practitioners' Association & Ors. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 688, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has specifically held as under:

"There is not much difficulty in holding that the Labour Court performs judicial functions and is a Court. The Labour Court adjudicates upon disputes that, had it not been for the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Maharashtra R