B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THREE writ petitions i. e. Special civil Application Nos. 8754/03,. 14016/03 and 7350/04 came to be finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this court (Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) by his common judgment, and order dated 4. 8. 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions, However out of three petitioners, only petitioner-Life Insurance corporation (for short "l/c") has challenged the said common judgment and order dated 4. 8. 2004 in Special Civil Application no. 14016/03 in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE respondent-workman was working as Record Clerk with the appellant -petitioner-LIC. For certain alleged misconducts, he was removed from service after holding domestic inquiry against him by the Corporation. It was challenged by the workman before, the Industrial Tribunal, ahmedabad by way of Reference (ITO) No. 94 of 1998. Learned Industrial Tribunal, by its order dated 30. 4. 2003, accepted the preliminary contention raised by the workman and held that the departmental inquiry conducted against him was illegal and accordingly permitted the workman to lead further evidence before it. It was challenged by the appellant petitioner-LIC before this court by way of Special Civil application No. 14016 of 2003. On facts of this case, the learned Single Judge observed in para 11 of his judgment that the industrial Tribunal has decided the legality of the departmental inquiry conducted by the LIC as a preliminary issue, therefore, at interlocutory stage,- interference by him would not be permissible. Thus, it is clear that without referring to Article 227 of the constitution of India,- the learned Single judge of this court refused to exercise his writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India against an interlocutory order passed by the Industrial tribunal. ( 3 ) IN view of the above, mr. G. M. Joshi. appearing for the respondent- workman raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal before this court on the ground that when the learned Single Judge of this court refused to exercise his writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india against the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, being interlocutory order, then the present appeal before this court would not be maintainable. In support of his submission Mr. Joshi has placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) ISHWARBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI patel V/s. K. . In support of his submission Mr. Joshi has placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) ISHWARBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI patel V/s. K. . H. TRIVEDI in 2003 (3) GLR 1878 ; and (ii) TALUKA DEVELOPMENT officer V/s. SADAJI KUVARJI in 2004 (1) GLR 502 . ( 4 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel mr. Clerk for the appellant-Corporation vehemently submitted that his petition before the learned Single Judge was both under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India and, therefore, this court should not throw out his appeal on this ground of its maintainability. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble supreme Court in case of KANAIYALAL and agrawals REPORTED IN (2001) (9) SCC 609, With profound respect to Mr. Clerk this judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in kanaiyalals case (supra) will not be applicable in the instant case. In fact, after considering the judgment of Kanaiyalals case, Division Bench of this case in case of ishwarbhai, case (supra) has laid down the following principle in para 12 of its judgment, which we would like, to reproduce the same :-"12. Accordingly, the following principles would have to be applied while considering the question about maintainability of a letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution :- (i) Whether the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 or Article 227,. if the learned single Judge has exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable. (ii) If the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution. , Letters Patent Appeal, would not be maintainable. (iii) If the Single Judge has not stated whether he has exercised his "jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the constitution, it would be relevant to examine whether the proceeding in question is an original proceeding or the proceeding challenges the decision of a Tribunal. If the, proceeding is original, the petition would obviously be under Article 226. If the, petition challenges the decision of a Tribunal, further inquiry should ensue. The expression "tribunal" would include within its ambit adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the state and are invested with judicial, as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. If the, proceeding is original, the petition would obviously be under Article 226. If the, petition challenges the decision of a Tribunal, further inquiry should ensue. The expression "tribunal" would include within its ambit adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the state and are invested with judicial, as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. The principal test of determining the character of the, authority as Tribunal is whether that authority is empowered to exercise any adjudicating power of the State and whether the same has been conferred on it by any statute or a statutory rule. If the Tribunal or the Court has exercised judicial function of the State as explained in the decision of the Apex Court in State of MAHARASHTRA V/s. LABOUR law PRACTITIONERS, ASSOCIATION, air 1998 SC 1233 and the Tribunal or the court is subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Article 235 of the, constitution, then a presumption will be raised that the Single Judge has exercised his: jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution. (iv) If the Single, Judge has not stated under which provision he has decided the matter and where the facts justify filing of petition both under Article 226 and Article 227 and the Court has decided the petition on merits, the letters Patent Bench would consider whether substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226 or not. If it is found that the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under Article 226, letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable, but not otherwise. (v) If substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226, Letters Patent Appeal would not- become non-maintainable merely because in the final order the Single Judge hast given ancillary directions which may pertain to article 227". ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that while dismissing the writ petitions,- the learned single Judge has not specifically mentioned in the impugned order that he has exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution. But, careful reading of the entire judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge makes it clear that the impugned order passed by the Industrial tribunal, was an interlocutory order, therefore, in exercise of his powers under article 227 he refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. It. But, careful reading of the entire judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge makes it clear that the impugned order passed by the Industrial tribunal, was an interlocutory order, therefore, in exercise of his powers under article 227 he refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. It. may also be stated that learned counsel Shri Clerk was appearing in one of those writ petitions which were decided by common judgment and order by the learned Single Judge had submitted before the learned Single Judge appearing for the workman that the court, should not interfere with the proceedings at interlocutory stage as the Tribunal has decided the matter at an interlocutory stage and both the sides will have rights to challenge the same at an appropriate stage after the dispute was finally decided by the labour Court. It is true that in the instant case, Mr. Clerk is appearing for the employer where the Industrial Tribunal held that the inquiry was vitiated, whereas in the other case wherein Mr. Clerk was appearing for the Tribunal said that it is not. Be that, as it may. At the cost of repetition, we may state that having carefully gone through the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing all these three writ petitions, against an interlocutory order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, it is clear that without specifically stating so that he was exercising his writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. In fact, he had exercised his jurisdiction only under Article 227 of the constitution of India and in. view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in case of Ishwarbhai (supra), which has considered all the judgments of the previous judgments of the Honble Supreme court of India, this appeal, is required to be dismissed only on the ground of its maintainability as in our considered opinion, the present, appeal before this court against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India before this court would not be maintainable. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, this appeal is dismissed only on the ground of its maintainability. ( 6 ) CIVIL Application for stay is dismissed as the main appeal is dismissed. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, this appeal is dismissed only on the ground of its maintainability. ( 6 ) CIVIL Application for stay is dismissed as the main appeal is dismissed. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( 7 ) AT this stage, Mr. Clerk requested to continue the interim relief for some time. When we have dismissed the appeal on the ground of its maintainability, then in our considered opinion there is no question of extending the interim relief, as prayed for, by Mr. Clerk. It is in the interest of parties that now they should appear before the industrial Tribunal and get the matter decided on merits in accordance with law. In view of this prayer for extension of stay is rejected. The matter is old one, therefore, we request the Industrial. Tribunal to decide the same as early as possible. .