SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, C. J.

( 1 ) WE have heard Shri V. B. Singh learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vijay Sinha learned counsel for the appellant and Shri b. N. . Singh learned counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) SHRI B. N. Singh learned counsel submits that the present Special Appeal at the instance of the appellant is not maintainable. According to him, the order dated March 27, 2002 passed by the Deputy Labour commissioner, Agra granting permission to the appellant to lay off its workmen is an order of Tribunal. This Court had passed the order in exercise of its power of general superintendence under Article 226 read with article 227 of the Constitution of India and in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the Special appeal is not maintainable. He relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh v. U. P, State Road transport Corporation, Lucknow and others, 1999-II-LLJ-763 (All-DB ).

( 3 ) SHRI V. B. Singh learned senior counsel however, submits, that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge has all the trappings of final order since the order dated March 27, 2002 passed by the Deputy labour Commissioner has been stayed and further direction has been issued that a fresh application be made complying with the rules, if any, and if such an application is made the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. According to him, in view of direction issued by the learned single Judge, there remains nothing to be decided in the writ petition and, therefore, the present Special Appeal is maintainable. He relied upon the decision of division Bench in the case of State of U. P. and others v. Renu Tiwari and 29 others, 1993 (22) ALR 233. He also relied upon another decision of Division Bench of this court in the case of Prof. Y. C. Simhadri, Vice chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, varanasi and others v. Deen Bandhu Pathak, 2001 (45) ALR 495.

( 4 ) IN the case of State of U. P. and others v. (Km.) Renu Tiwari, this Court has held that where the order under appeal affects the merit of the controversy directly involved in the writ petition itself, it has all the trappings of judgment and appeal is maintainable.

( 5 ) IN the case of Prof Y. C. Simhadri, Vice chancellor Banaras Hindu University, varanasi (supra), this Court following the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimiji v. Jayabend. Kania and another, AIR 1981 SC 1786 : 1981 (4)scc 8 after considering Clause 10 of the letters Patent, has held that interlocutory order which decided matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights to the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned, is a judgment, and as such is appealable.

( 6 ) THE direction given by the learned single Judge while staying the operation of the order dated March 27, 2002 that fresh application be made complying with the rules and if made, will be disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously in effect holds the earlier application to be not maintainable which affects the vital and valuable right of the appellant. Thus, the order under appeal has all the traits and trappings of a judgment and the present Special Appeal is maintainable.

( 7 ) SO far as the decision of this Court in ram Kripal Singh (supra), relied by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, we find that the said case was concerned with the award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the allahabad High Court Rules, no appeal lies. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case, neither any award nor any order passed by the labour Court or the Tribunal has been challenged in the writ petition.

( 8 ) THUS, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner is overruled.

( 9 ) IN view of the fact that by staying the operation of the order dated March 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document