Judgment Rajeev Gupta, J. Mr. Alak Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the appellants. . Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Nanak Chand Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Mr. Lok Pal Singh and Mr. Nanak Chand Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Special Appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment was passed in a writ petition filed against the award of the Labour Court and as such, the present Special Appeal is not maintainable. 3. Respondent No.1 Damodar Prasad filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the termination order dt. 10-3-1998, order dt. 8-9-2000 and order dt. 28-5-2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun - respondent no.1. ii. pass any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. iii. award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner." 4. Thus, the petitioner, in substance, impugned the orders of his termination and the order of the Labour Court affirming the same. 5. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as applicable to the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), reads as follows: "5. Special appeal. iii. award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner." 4. Thus, the petitioner, in substance, impugned the orders of his termination and the order of the Labour Court affirming the same. 5. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as applicable to the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), reads as follows: "5. Special appeal. - An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the• matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judg." 6. In the case of Ajeet Singh Patwa Vs. The District Judge, Pithoragarh & others reported in 2005 (2) UD 659, it was held in para 4 as under: "4. ................. ..It is clear from the above-quoted provisions that a special appeal shall not lie from an order passed by the Single Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment of a Court made in the exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The order impugned in this special appeal was passed by the Single Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in respect of a judgment of the District Court, Pithoragarh made in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 is upheld. The special appeal is dismissed as not maintainable." 7. Mr. Alok Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate as to how the present Special Appeal against the impugned judgment is maintainable in view of the above-quoted Division Bench decision. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the writ petition was seeking quashing of the order of his termination and the order passed by the Labour Court. Special Appeal, against the judgment passed in such a writ petition, is expressly barred under Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. 9. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and is hereby dismissed accordingly.