( 1. ) IN this intra-Court appeal preferred under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity the Act), the defensibility and legal acceptability of order dated 16-5-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 3355/2007 is called in question.

( 2. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that the writ appeal is not maintainable as the order passed by the learned Single Judge has emanated from a proceeding before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the CGIT-cum-Labour Court) which had culminated in an award whereby the CGIT-cum-Labour Court passed the award ex parte and eventually, declined to interfere in the order of dismissal passed by the Management against the workman. As a preliminary objection has been raised, it is obligatory on the part of this Court to deal with the same.

( 3. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the respondents has commended us to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. The said proviso reads as under:-"2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to a Division Bench Comprising of two Judges of the same High court: provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. "

( 4. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has laid immense emphasis on the first proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 2 to pyramid the submission that no appeal shall lie against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered in kanhaiyalal Agrawal and others Vs. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company limited, (2001) 9 SCC 609.

( 5. ) RESISTING the aforesaid submission, Mr. Sanjay Verma, leaned counsel for the appellant has commended us to the Full Bench decision of this court rendered in Dr. Jaidev Siddha and others Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha and others, 2007 (3) M. P. H. T. 388 (FB) = (Writ Appeal No. 699/2007, decided on 19-7-2007 ). The Full Bench of this Court after referring to the decisions rendered in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and others, AIR 1955 SC 233, Umaji Keshao Meshram and others Vs. Smt. Radhikabai and another, AIR 1986 SC 1272, Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar and others Vs. Nihalchand waghajibhai Shaha and others, AIR 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC, Ratnagiri District central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Dinkar Kashinath Watve (C. A. No. 520 of 1989, decided on 27-1-1989), Mangalbhai and others Vs. Dr. Radhyshyam, AIR 1993 SC 806, Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankarprasad, (1999) 6 SCC 275, Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, AIR 2003 SC 3044, custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc. , (1961) 3 SCR 855, Nagendra Nath Bora and another Vs. Commissionar of Hills division and Appeals, AIR 1958 SC 398, T. C. Basappa Vs. T. Nagappa and another, AIR 1954 SC 440 and Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra and another, air 2002 SC 1771 and Kishorilal Vs. Sales Officer, District Land Development bank and others, (2006) 7 SCC 496, has held as under:-

"14. In these case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, air 2003 SC 3044, a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court after referring to the established principles relating to the constitutional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227- of the Constitution of India and after referring to the basic spectrum inhered in writ of certiorari and further referr