[Per : Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. (Oral)]

Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The service of the appellants were terminated on 04th September, 1978. The workers raised an industrial dispute and, the State Government, made a reference, by an order dated 04th September, 1979. The Industrial Tribunal gave an award dated 21.06.1985 directing reinstatement with backwages. The employer, being aggrieved by the said award, filed a writ petition No. 1455 of 1986 before the Allahabad High Court, which remained pending and, upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the matter was remitted to this Court, where it was renumbered as Writ Petition No. 294 of 2002 (M/S). The writ Court allowed the writ petition and the award of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside by an order dated 12.08.2009. The workmen filed a review application, which was dismissed by an order dated 11.11.2009. The workers, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, have filed the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which is applicable to this Court.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent employer with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no special appeal was maintainable against an order of the learned Single Judge setting aside an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal against which a special appeal was maintainable. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the parties have placed various judgments, which will be considered herewith.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to peruse Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which has been adopted by this Court. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has underwent a series of amendment since its inception, which was framed in 1952. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, as existing as on date, is quoted hereunder :-

“5. Special appeal. – An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction [or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award – (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matter enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.]”

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that no appeal arising from a judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of a judgment, order or an award of the Tribunal would lie. The language of the provision of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court shows that no appeal shall lie against a judgment rendered in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment or order made or purported to be made in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Uttar Pradesh Act or any Central Act with respect to any matter enumera