JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

These two Letters Patent Appeals were heard together and are disposed of by the common judgment as common questions of law are involved in these appeals.

2. LPA No. 724 of 2013 is at the instance of the employer, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, through Rajkot Divisional Controller, and is directed against an order dated 23rd January 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in SCA No. 15648 of 2012 thereby modifying the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in a Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the learned Tribunal was too much lenient in favour of the employee and, therefore, modified the award by imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments with future effect. The Tribunal, however, passed an award by placing the employee on his original pay-scale of Conductor with stoppage of two increments with future effect.

2.1 Being dissatisfied, the LPA No. 724 of 2013 has been filed by the employer.

3. In LPA No. 735 of 2013, the selfsame employer, through Vadodara Divisional Controller, has challenged an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12th January 2012 in SCA No. 24351 of 2006 by which the learned Single Judge modified the award passed by the Labour Court by imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect. The Labour Court, by the award impugned, however, directed reinstatement of the employee to his original post with the continuity of service and without back wages.

3.1 Being dissatisfied, the employer has come up with the LPA No. 735 of 2013 for restoration of the original order of dismissal.

4. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the cause title of the Special Civil Applications, out of which these two appeals arise, those applications were described as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India where the Tribunal or the Labour Court, whose order was sought to be challenged, was not made party. In SCA No. 24351 of 2006, out of which LPA NO. 735 of 2013 arises, the appellant prayed for a writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ for quashing the award of the Labour Court whereas in SCA No. 15648 of 2012, out of which LPA No. 724 of 2013 arises, the appellant prayed for certiorari or any other appropriate writ.

5. In our opinion, these Letters Patent Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent are not maintainable in view of the fact that the proceedings out of which the present appeals arise cannot be said to be a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but in fact, the learned Single Judge really exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by modifying the award.

6. Although Mr. Rawal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in these matters, strenuously contended before us that the learned Single Judge really exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ of certiorari, we are not convinced by such submission for the following reasons:-

7. In order to invoke writ jurisdiction for certiorari against an order of Tribunal and/or Labour Court, such proceedings must be an original proceeding and where the award of an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is challenged, the only writ that can be invoked under Article 226 of the constitution is the one of certiorari. It is now well-settled law that in order to maintain a writ-application for certiorari against an order of a Tribunal and/or Labour Court, the Tribunal and/or the Labour Court whose order is sought to be quashed must be made a party as laid down in the four-judge-bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narayan Singh v. Board Of Revenue Reported in AIR 1963 SC 786. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narayan Singh [supra] are relevant and are quoted below:-

"The next question is, what is the nature o