JUDGMENT : A.L.Dave, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 03.08.2010, rendered by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3668 of 1999. The said petition arose out of the award passed by the Labour Court No.7, Ahmedabad on 05.02.1999 in reference (LCA) No.5 of 1995. 2. The reference was made to the Labour Court on the question of reinstatement and backwages to the respondent herein and the Labour Court by the award directed reinstatement of the respondent with 50% backwages for the period from 01.07.1987 to 30.11.1995 and further 20% backwages for the period from 01.12.1995 till reinstatement. The appeal is preferred, challenging the award, on the ground that the Labour Court had taken into consideration the provisions of the grant-in-aid code, which was beyond its jurisdiction. The petition was described as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and following reliefs were sought in the petition:- "(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 5th February 1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Court No.7, Ahmedabad, in Reference(LCA) No.5 of 1995. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution including continued operation, execution and implementation of the impugned judgment and award dated 5th February 1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Court No.7, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No.5 of 1995. (D) Such other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice." 3. Learned Single Judge while deciding the petition partly allowed the petition, by upholding the reinstatement part of the award and setting aside the award, so far as related to the backwages and hence, this appeal. 4. We find that the nomenclature of the petition was as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the cause-title would suggest that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was not a party to the petition and that there is no allegation of any breach of any constitutional or statutory rights of the petitioner. 4. We find that the nomenclature of the petition was as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the cause-title would suggest that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was not a party to the petition and that there is no allegation of any breach of any constitutional or statutory rights of the petitioner. The reliefs of the petition only suggest that the petitioner sought quashment and setting aside the award in question. 5. In light of the decisions of this Court, in case of the Bhagyoday Co-operative Bank Limited v. Natvarlal K. Patel in Special Civil Application No.12382 of 2010 dated 28.07.2011 and in case of Vijay Hathising Shah v. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.289 of 2008 dated 28.07.2011, this appeal would not be maintainable as the appeal challenges the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in a petition, which was virtually under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Clause-15 of the Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, cannot be invoked. The appeal fails and stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.