( 1 ) WE have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, Senior Counsel, Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastave, Sri Arvind srivastava, Sri Sidhartha, Sri P. R. Mauiya, Sri V. S. Sinha, Advocates, appearing for the appellants and Sri P. S. Baghel, Sri Maneesh Goyal, Advocates and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior advocate, Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

( 2 ) IN all these appeals, the question regarding maintainability of appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been raised. A preliminary objection has been raised by respondents regarding maintainability of the appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard Counsel for both the parties on the question of maintainability of the appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and by this common order we arc deciding the question of maintainability along.

( 4 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 is being treated as leading case and facts of that case are being noted in some detail for appreciating the arguments raised by Counsel for the appellants.

( 5 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 has been filed by appellants challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 30th October, 2001 in Writ Petition No. " 36087 of 1998. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the appellants challenging the award of the Labour Court, U. P. , Kanpur dated 6th February, 1998. Copy of the award has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The deputy Labour Commissioner, U. P. , Kanpur vide his referring order dated 24th November, 1994 made a reference to the Labour Court under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for deciding the dispute as to whether termination of skilled labour, Sri Ram Swaroop, by the employer is proper and valid and if not then to what benefit the concerned workman is entitled. Before the Labour court the appellants and respondent No. 2 filed their statement and Labour Court ultimately gave an award dated 6th February, 1998, holding termination of respondent No. 2 dated 4th April, 1987 as illegal. Direction was issued for reinstating the workman in service. Against the aforesaid award by the Labour Court, U. P. Kanpur appellants filed the writ petition which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dated 30th October, 2001. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that award of Labour Court docs not require any interference in the writ petition. Against this judgment dated 30th October, 2001, special Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 has been filed.

( 6 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 416 of 2002, Virendra Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Central Government and Ors. , and Special Appeal No. 541 of 2002, The District Cooperative Bank Ltd. , Ghazipur v. Badri Ram and Anr. , have been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge arising out of writ petitions in which award made by the Labour Court was challenged.

( 7 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 878 of 2002, Prabhunath Singh v. Joint Director of Education, III Region, gorakhpur and Ors. , has been filed challenging the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 13th August, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 43075 of 2000, Ram Chandra Yadav v. Joint director of Education. Joint Director of Education vide his order dated 8th September, 2000, decided the dispute of seniority between the appellant and Ram Chandra Yadav. The Joint director of Education vide its order dated 8th September, 2000 held Prabhunath Singh, appellant, senior to Ram Chandra Yadav. The order of Joint Director was in exercise of jurisdiction under Regulation 3, Chapter II of Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate education Act, 1921. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 13th August. 2002 quashed the order of Joint Director of Education and has directed the Joint Director of Education to decide the dispute afresh in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. The said judgmen