ORDER

1. All these ten Writ Appeals involving identical question of law and similar factual matrix have been heard together and are being adjudicated & decided by this common order. The facts in WA.329/2020 are being taken up for consideration.

WA. 329/2020 [M/s Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. & Anr. v. Rakesh Singh & Ors.]

2. This intra-Court appeal filed u/Sec. 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the final order passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising supervisory jurisdiction u/Art.227 of the Constitution of India dismissing the petition in question by which challenge was made to order dated 09.08.2018 by which an application preferred u/O.IX rule 13 CPC by the appellant herein for setting aside ex parte order passed on 31.10.2017 by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act allowing application u/s 14 r/w sec 20 Minimum Wages Act (“MN Act” for brevity) preferred by employee respondent No.1 herein.

3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission at length.

4. The first objection of learned counsel for respondents is as regards maintainability of this writ appeal in the face of statutory bar in Sec 2(1) of 2005 Adhiniyam since the impugned order of learned singe bench is said to be passed u/Art. 227.

4.1 The issue qua the objection is no more res integra in view of Full Bench decision dated. 6.7.2017 rendered in WA. 286/2017 [Shailendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer and another] where Bench of this Court comprising of three Hon’ble Judges were called upon to iron out the creases created by the divergent views on the question as to whether an award of the Labour Court passed under the Industrial Disputes Act when challenged in a petition before the Single Judge of this Court should be treated as an order u/Art. 226 or 227 of Constitution? The Full Bench held thus :

“16. Therefore, we find that an order of the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal is amenable to the writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exercise of writ of certiorari, the High Court demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, held as under :-

“7. …The second essential feature of a writ of certiorari is that the control which is exercised through it over judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or bodies is not in an appellate but supervisory capacity. In granting a writ of certiorari the superior Court does not exercise the powers of an appellate tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The offending order or proceeding so to say is put out of the way as one which should not be used to the detriment of any person [Vide Per Lord Cairns in Walshall’s Overseers v. London and North Western Railway Co., (1879) 4 AC 30, 39.]”

17. But issuance of the directions after setting aside an order passed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226, is only under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court exercises composite jurisdiction which will make intra Court appeal maintainable. Thus the order passed by the Division Bench in Superintendent, Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional Agricultural Research Station, Ujjain’s Case (supra), does not lay down correct principal of law and is thus overruled.

18. We may clarify that the orders passed by the Judicial Courts, subordinate to a High Court even in criminal matters when challenged in proceedings before the High Courts are only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus no intra Court appeal