Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(FULL BENCH)
Hemant Gupta, C.J. , Smt. Anjuli Palo and Vijay Kumar Shukla, JJ.
Shailendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer and another
Writ Appeal No.286 of 2017 (Jabalpur); Decided on 6.7.2017.
Held : A writ of certiorari is maintainable against any authority or body of persons constituted by law or having legal authority to adjudicate upon questions affecting the rights of a subject and enjoined with a duty to act judicially or quasi-judicially is amenable to the certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court.
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.
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 principle of law and is thus overruled. 2016(1) MPLJ 643 overruled.
(2) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S.2(1), proviso -- appeal under -- maintainability of -- orders passed by judicial Courts even in criminal matters -- same can be challenged before High Court only under Article 227 of Constitution of India -- order passed in such writ petition -- writ appeal is not maintainable against such order.
Held : 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 would be maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in proceedings arising out of an order passed by Judicial Courts, may be civil or criminal proceedings.
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 227 -- M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 -- S.2(1), proviso -- writ appeal under -- maintainability of -- only exclusive bar was in respect of order passed by judicial Court which could be challenged only under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Held : We find that the Division Bench has not applied the principles laid down in the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijay Singhji (supra), in a correct perspective. The Supreme Court held in Paragraph No.30, that maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal would depend upon pleadings in the writ petition nature and character of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the type of directions issued regard being had to the jurisdictional perspectives in the constitutional context. The only exclusive bar was in respect of an order passed by the Judicial Court which could be challenged only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in terms of Jogendrasinhji Vijay Singhji’s case, it is a question of fact in each case as to whether intra Court appeal would be maintainable in respect of the orders passed by the judicial or quasi judicial Tribunals constituted under any Act could be challenged under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 or both. 2007(3) JLJ 151, (FB), 2007(3) JLJ 231 (SC), 2008(1) JLJ 76 (SB), (2008)14 SCC 58, (2008)15 SCC 233, (2009)1910 SCC 584, (1999)6 SCC 275, (2003)6 SCC 675, (2009)5 SCC 616, (2015)5 SCC 423, (2015)9 SCC 1, 2008(1) MPHT 181 and AIR 1954 SC 440 discussed.
¼1½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½ && mica/k ds v/khu vihy && dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && Je U;k;ky; ;k vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vkns'k && ,sls vkns'k ds fo:) Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk && mRizs"k.k fjV dk iz;ksx djus ds && ;fn vkns'k vf/kdkfjrk jfgr ;k lqLi"Vr;k =qfViw.kZ ik;k tkrk gS && mls vikLr fd;k tk ldrk gS && fdarq voj vf/kdj.k ij viuk Loa; dk er izfrLFkkfir ugha djrk && ,slh 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:) fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mRizs"k.k fjV fdlh izkf/kdkjh ;k fof/k }kjk xfBr O;fDRk;ksa ds fudk; ;k ukxfjd ds vf/kdkjks dks izHkkfor djus ds iz'u ij U;k;fu.kZ;u djus dk fof/kd izkf/kdkj j[kus okys ds fo:) pykus ;ksX; gS vkSj U;kf;d :i ls ;k U;kf;ddYi :i ls drZO; djus dk vkns'k nsuk mPp U;k;ky; dh mRizs"k.k vf/kdkfjrk ds v/;/khu gSaA blfy,] ge ikrs gS fd Je U;k;ky; ;k vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ;k vkns'k lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu mRizs"k.k fjV ds v/;/khu gSA mRizs"k.k fjV dk iz;ksx djus esa] mPp U;k;ky; vkns'k dks Hkaftr djrk gS ftls ;g vf/kdkfjrk jfgr ;k lqLi"Vr;k =qfViw.kZ le>rk gS fdarq voj vf/kdj.k ij vius Lo;a dh jk; izfrLFkkfir ugha djrkA fdarq vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu iznŸk 'kfDRk;ksa dk iz;ksx dj vkns'k vIkkLr djus ds i'pkr~ funs'k tkjh djuk] dsoy Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu gSA blfy,] U;k;ky; la;qDr vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx djrk gS ftlls U;k;ky;E;arj vihy pykus ;ksX; gksxhA bl izdkj v/kh{kd] jktekrk fot;kjkts flaf/k;k {ks=h; d`f"k 'kks/k laLFkku] mTtSUk ds ekeys ¼mi;qDr½ esa [kaM+ U;k;ihB us fof/k dk lgh fla)kr vf/kdfFkr ugha fd;k gS vkSj blfy, mYVk tkrk gSA 2016 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 643 mYVk x;kA ¼2½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM+ U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½] ijarqd && mica/k ds v/khu vihy && dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && U;kf;d U;k;ky; }kjk ;|fi vkijkf/kd ekeyksa esa Hkh ikfjr vkns'k && mls dsoy Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vk{ksfir fd;k tk ldrk gS && ,slh fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k && ,sls vkns'k ds fo:) fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; ugha gSaA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ge Li"V djrs gS fd mPp U;k;ky; ds v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vkijkf/kd ekeyksa esa Hkh ikfjr vkns'kks dks tc mPp U;k;ky;ksa ds le{k dk;Zokfg;ksa esa vk{ksfir fd, tkrs gS dsoy Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu vr% fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh'k }kjk U;kf;d U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkns'k] flfoy ;k vkijkf/kd gks ldrs gS ls mRiUu dk;Zofkg;ksa esa ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:) U;k;ky;kE;aarj vihy pykus ;ksX; ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 18 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 rFkk 227 && e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e- 2005 && /kkjk 2¼1½] ijarqd && mica/k ds v/khu fjV vihy && dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && vuU; otZu dsoy U;kf;d U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr ,sls vkns'k ds fo"k; esa Fkk ftls dsoy Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu vk{ksfir fd;k tk ldrk FkkA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ge ikrs gS fd [kaM U;k;ihB us tksxsUnzflagth fot;flagath ¼mi;qDr½ ds izdj.k esa vf/kdfFkr fl)krksa dks lgh ifjis{; esa iz;qDRk ugha fd;k gSA mPpre U;k;ky; us iSjk 30 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS] fd ysVlZ isVsaV vihy dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk fjV ;kfpdk esa vfHkopu vkSj fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh izd`fr vkSj y{k.k ij fuHkZj gksxk] tkjh fd, x, funs'kks ds izdkj dk vf/kdkfjrk ds ifjis{; esa lkfo/kkfud lanHkZ esa /;ku j[kk tk,xkA vuU; otZu dsoy ,sls vkns'k ds fo"k; es Fkk ftls dsoy Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu vk{ksfir fd;k tk ldrk FkkA blfy,] tksxsUnzflagth fot;flagth ds izdj.k ds fuca/kuksa esa ;g izR;sd ekeys esa rF; dk iz'u gS fd D;k fdlh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu xfBr U;kf;d ;k U;kf;ddYi vf/kdj.kksa }kjk ikfjr ,sls vkns'kksa ds fy, vuqPNsn 226 vkSj@;k vuqPNsn 227 ;k nksuks ds v/khu vk{ksfir fd;k tk lds fo"k; esa U;k;ky;kE;arj vihy pykus ;ksX; gksxhA 2007 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 151 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 2007 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 231 ¼mPpre U;k-½] 2008¼1½ ts ,y ts 76¼fo'ks"k U;k;ihB½] ¼2008½ 14 ,l lh lh 58] ¼2008½ 15 ,l lh lh 233] ¼2009½ 10 ,l lh lh 584] ¼1999½ 6 ,l lh lh 275] ¼2003½ 6 ,l lh lh 675] ¼2009½ 5 ,l lh lh 616] ¼2015½ 5 ,l lh lh 423] ¼2015½ 9 ,l lh lh 1] 2008 ¼1½ ,e ih ,p Vh 181 rFkk , vkbZ vkj 1954 ,l lh 440 foosfprA ¼iSjk 14
Gupta, C.J. --- 1. 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 Judgement or order of one Judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction. - (1) An appeal shall lie from a Judgement 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) JLJ 151 = 2007(3) MPLJ 595 (FB)], 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 or
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
