Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Lal Sonkar vs Gun Carriage Factory on 12 January, 2007
Bench: Chief Justice, R.S. Jha
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. This is an appeal against the order dated 15-9-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5028/2002.
3. An objection has been taken in the writ appeal by the respondents saying that under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, an appeal is available only against the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no appeal is available against the order of the learned Single Judge passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Mr. Mohan Sausarkar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, submitted that a reading of the order dated 15- 9-2006 will go to show that the learned Single Judge has dismissed W.P. No. 5028/2002 in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6475/2001 and a reading of the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6475/2001 would show that the same has been passed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
5. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that W.P. No. 5028/2002 was filed by the appellant both under the Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the grievance of the appellant in the writ petition is that the Labour Court while holding that the punishment was disproportionate, did not granted backwages to the appellant. He further submitted that the ground raised in the writ petition and the reliefs claimed in the writ petition show that the same was one under Article 226 of the Constitution and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The law is now well settle by the Apex Court that where the learned Single Judge does not mention the provision under which the order has been passed and from the pleadings in the writ petition and the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, the Court can infer that the same is not only under Article 227 but also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can presume that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hold the appeal to be maintainable. In the present case, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not mention the article under which it has been passed. The reliefs claimed are such as can be claimed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The grounds taken by the appellant in the writ petition are also such as can be taken in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition itself states that the same is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, we presume that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly hold that the appeal is maintainable.
7. Issue notice.
8. Mr. Mohan Sausarkar accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
9. Reply if any be filed within four weeks.