Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant appeal has been filed under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2139/2001 by which the labour court award dated 20.11.2000 has been upheld.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government vide order dated 24.12.1996 made a reference under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as to whether termination of the workman w.e.f. 24.2.1993 was in accordance with law and if not to what relief he was entitled for. In pursuance of the said reference, the labour court made the award dated 20.11.2000 in favour of the workman holding that termination of his services had been in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act particularly compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act and the Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 had not been made. The workman was directed to be reinstated with 50% of the back-wages from the date of reference till that of award. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants preferred writ petition No. 2139/2001. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an elaborate and reasoned judgment and order dated 12.9.2001. Hence, this appeal.

(3). This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Ordinance). That Ordinance provided intra- court appeal against the judgment and order of the Single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the judgments in first appeal by the Single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Honble the President of India on 29.8.2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India,Extra Ordinary, Part II, dated 29.8.2001.

(4). The relevant part of the Act reads as under:-

`(2) The enactments specified in the Schedule are hereby repealed.

... ... ... ... ..... ...........

1949 Rajasthan Ord. XV The Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949

(5). Thus, the mute question involved in this case is as to whether the appeal is maintainable in spite of the Ordinance being repealed.

(6). A Division Bench of this Court in Mohan Lal vs. Lal Chand (1), has traced the history of the said Ordinance and considered in detail the reorganisation of States and emerging of the State of Rajasthan. The State of Rajasthan, as it exists today, is the result of process of integration and amalgamation of different Princely States. On formation of the State of Rajasthan in 1949, the Rajasthan High Court came to be established under the said Ordinance. Clause 18 of the same provided for intra-Court appeal. Though all the High Court in India after commencement of the Indian Constitution owe their existence under Articles 214 and 225 of the Constitution of India, still their powers of letters patent appeal or special appeal flow from paramount charter under which they came into existence.

(7). Thus, it is in this way that special appeal could be filed under Sec. 18 of the Ordinance.

(8). The Ordinance had an effect of law as an Act passed by the Legislature and could not be understood as Ordinance having a limited life as provided under the Government of India Act, 1935 or Constitution of India, for the reason that the same had been promulgated by the Raj Pramukh under his legislative powers conferred upon him by Article 10(2) of the Covenant, 1949 (an instrument under which the Princely States united and united State of Rajasthan came into existence) to be read with Articles 372 and 366 of the Constitution of India.

(9). On 31.8.1956, the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act No. 37 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as `the Reorganisation act) was promulgated by Honble the Presiden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document