As the factual matrix would unveil, the Division Bench that referred the matter to a larger Bench, numbericed companyflict in Revaben Wd o. Ambalal Motibhai and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others1 and Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and others2 and at that juncture framed two questions.
The employer called in question the defensibility of the order of the Industrial Court by filing a Special Civil Application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Gujarat.
During the pendency of an appeal before this Court, the Deputy Commissioner had companyducted an enquiry and companye to the companyclusion that Phudan Manjhi was number fit to be selected for grant of licence and he was waiting for making a fresh settlement.
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for quashment of the said orders and before the writ companyrt neither Phudan Manjhi number Bhagwan Rajak in whose favour the Board of Revenue had decided was made a party.
Being dissatisfied, the employees and the Union preferred a joint appeal before the Industrial Court, Surat which set aside the order of the Labour Court and issued certain directions against the employer.
The Labour Court on companysideration of the facts and law, declined to grant the relief.
An appeal preferred before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies was dismissed and a further appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue which interfered with the order passed by the Joint Registrar.
The order passed by the Board of Revenue was called in question by the District Land Development Bank, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.
In companyrse of hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned companynsel for the respondent that as Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak who were necessary parties to the writ petition were number made parties, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition in limini.
Dealing with the maintainability of the appeal, the two Judge Bench held that The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our opinion, companymitted an error in interfering with the findings of fact arrived at by the Board of Revenue.
Being grieved by the aforesaid order, a letters patent appeal was preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
A letters patent appeal was preferred challenging the order of the learned Single Judge which opined that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was number maintainable as he had exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This companyclusion directly flows from the relevant averments made in the writ petition and the nature of jurisdiction invoked by the respondent as numbered by the learned Single Judge in his judgment, as seen earlier.
Consequently, it companyld number be said that clause 15 of the Letters Patent was number attracted for preferring appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
In Kishorilal v. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank and Others37, a recovery proceeding was initiated by the respondent Bank therein and the land mortgaged to the Bank were sold.
