The main legal point established in the given judgment is that an intra-court appeal would lie against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but not if the Single Judge exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Hemant Gupta, CJ.

The matter has been placed before this Bench on a reference made by the Division Bench of this Court on 3.5.2017, wherein following question was referred for the opinion of this Court:

"Whether an intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 would be maintainable against an order passed by learned Single Bench assailing an Award passed by the Labour Court?"

2. Since the issue is purely legal, therefore, the facts as are necessary for the decision of the present reference alone are given in brief. The said question arises out of the fact that the workman, the present appellant, raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court declined the reference, inter alia, on the ground that the reference has been sought after delay without any reasonable cause. A writ petition directed against the said order has been dismissed by the learned Single Bench on 16.1.2017 for the reason that the appellant has offered no explanation that the industrial disputes survive for 12 years. It is aggrieved by the said decision; the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The relevant provision 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.

(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within 45 days from the date of order passed by a single Judge:

Provided that any appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period of 45 days, if the petitioner satisfies the Division Bench that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period."

3. The question as to whether an intra Court appeal would lie against an order passed under Article 226 and/or 227 has been examined by Full Bench of this Court in Jaidev Siddha (Dr.) and others v. Jaiprakash Siddha and others reported as 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 wherein, the expression "in exercise of original jurisdiction" appearing in Section 2 (1) of the Act came up for interpretation in conflicting view of the Division Bench judgments of this Court, the Court held that the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be examined and that Section 2 of the Act cannot be given a restricted and constricted meaning because an order passed in a writ petition can tantamount to an order under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Court held as under:-

"17. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite vivid and luminescent that the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given, the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior Tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Phraseology used in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in Section 2 of the Act cannot be given a restricted and constricted meaning because an order passed in a writ petition can tantamount to