STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus VISAN KUMAR SHIV CHARAN LAL

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 05-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

e 
' 
[2008) 17 S.C.R. 156 
-'. 
A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
' ' 
v. 
+--
VISAN KUMA_~ SHIV CHARAN LAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 7134 of 2008) 
.. 
B 
r 
DECEMBER 05, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
-
~ 
. 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
. 
.. 
' 
.. 1 
Letters Patent (Madhya Pradesh-High Court) 
c 
. Letters Patent Appeal -
Against order passed in a 
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing -
\ 
. of the order of Labour Court - Maintainability of -
Held: 
Maintainable - Nomenclature description of the writ petition 
·D is of no consequence in determining an LPA, but what is to 
be considered is the nature of controversy - Constitution of 
India, 1950 -Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 u/s. 10- Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand 
,;--
Nyaya Pith Ko Appeal) Act, 2005 - s. 2. 
E 
A writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution 
of India was filed seeking quashing of the order of Labour 
·• 
Court passed in a reference made uls. 10 ·of Industrial 
,,__
Disputes Act, 1947. On dismissal of the writ petition, 
a 
Letters Patent appeal was filed. which was dismissed by 
~ 
F Division Bench of High Court as not maintainable on the 
ground that the order was in a petition under Article 227 
f 
r 
---
9f the Constitution. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The High Court was not justified in holding 
that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable .. The 
-I=
High Court seems to have gone· by the nomenclature 
~ 
~ 
description of the writ petition to be one under Article 227 
-
H 
156 
;,
·sTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. VISAN 
157 
KUMAR SHIV CHARAN LAL 
of the Constitution. The High Court did not consider the 
A 
-f 
nature of the controversy and the prayer involved in the 
Writ petition. The prayer was to quash the order of the 
Labour Court. The nomenclature is of no consequence. 
It is the nature. of the relief sought for and the controversy 
involved which determines the Article which is applicable. 
B 
The writ appeal shall be heard by the Division Bench on 
merits. [Paras 2, 3 and 14] [170-F; 158-G-H; 159-A] 
--. 
~ 
Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Ahmad lshaque and Ors. AIR 
1955 SC 233; Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai AIR G 
1986 SC 1272; Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar v. 
... 
Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 11; 
, 
Mahgalbhai and Ors. v. Radhyshyam (Dr.) AIR 1993 SC 806; 
Lokmat Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Shankarprasad 1999 (6) SCC 
275; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. AIR 2003 
D 
SC 3044; Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Khan 
Saheb Abdul Shukoor, etc. 1961 (3) SCR 855; Nagendra 
.., 
Nath Bora and Anr. v. Commissioner of Hills Division AIR 
" 
1958 SC 398; T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa AIR 1954 SC 
440; Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra AIR 2002 SC 1771; 
Mis. MMTC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and E 
Ors. 2008 (13) SCALE 682, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1955 SC 233 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
' 
F 
-+ 
AIR 1986 SC 1272 
Relied on. 
Para 6 
1993 supp. (1) sec 11 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
AIR 1993 SC 806 
Relied on. 
Para 10 
1999 (6) sec 21s 
Relied on. 
Para 11 .G 
.....,., 
AIR 2003 SC 3044 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
'-. 
1961 (3) SCR 855 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
.. 
AIR 1958 SC 398 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
H 
-
I
e 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
-
A 
AIR 1954 SC 440 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
+ 
AIR 2002 SC 1771 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
,, 
2008 (13) SCALE 682 
-Relied on. 
Para 13 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7134 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.9.2006 of the 
-1 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, .Bench at Gwalior in Writ 
c 
Appeal No. 315 of 2006. 
B.S. Banthia for the Appellants. 
..... 
S.K. Dubey, Niraj Sharma, Vikrant Singh Bais and Yogesh 
Tiwari for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
r 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the 
E Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Jabalpur 
Bench holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not 
maintainable. Initially, the matter was agitated by the respondent 
No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee'), before the 
Labour Court under reference made under Section 1 O of the 
F 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'), Which was 
decided in favour of respondent no.1. Thereafter the writ 
{ .., 
petition was filed which was dismissed by learned Single Judge. 
The Division Bench, as noted above
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.