ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Hiren M.Modi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Muralin Devnani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.12.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.10970 of 2012, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, wherein the award dated 16.03.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh, in reference No.61 of 1995 (old (LCR) NO.967 of 1989) had been challenged. No writ of certiorari was issued. 3. The Five Judges' Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M. Mogal and another, 2014 GLH 1 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1149 of 2002, Dated: 26.12.2013, has held as under:- “x) If the Special Civil Application is described as one not only under Article 226 of the Constitution, but also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Court or the Tribunal whose order is sought to be quashed, is not made a party, the application is not maintainable as one for the relief of certiorari in the absence of the concerned Tribunal or Court as party, but the same may be treated as one under Article227 of the Constitution of India. If the Court or Tribunal is not impleaded as a party respondent in the main petition, then by merely impleading such court or tribunal for the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal will not change the nature and character of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. By merely impleading such a Court or Tribunal for the first time in the LPA, the appeal could not be said to be maintainable, if the proceedings before the learned Single Judge remained in the nature of supervisory proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. By merely impleading such a Court or Tribunal for the first time in the LPA, the appeal could not be said to be maintainable, if the proceedings before the learned Single Judge remained in the nature of supervisory proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. xi) If the learned Single Judge, in exercise of a purported power under Article 227 of the Constitution sets aside the order of Tribunal or Court below and at the same time, the essential conditions for issue of writ of certiorari are absent, no appeal will be maintainable against such order in view of the specific bar created under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent itself and such an order can be cha enged only by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. xii) If a learned Single Judge, in exercise of a purported power under Article 227 of the Constitution modifies the order of Tribunal/Authority or Court below and thereby partly a ows a petition to a certain extent, then in such circumstances, it could not be said that the Court exercised its certiorari jurisdiction and no appeal will be maintainable against such order in view of the specific bar created under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent itself. However, if a learned Single Judge, in purported exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issues a writ of certiorari, although the same is not maintainable, an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would nevertheless be maintainable against such order. To put it in other words, take a case where a party on his own invokes supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and in such a petition, the Court issues a writ of certiorari, then against such an order an LPA would be maintainable. To put it explicitly clear, take a case where in a petition neither there is a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari nor the Tribunal/Authority or Court whose order is impugned is impleaded as a party respondent, and despite such being the position, if the Court proceeds to issue a writ of certiorari, then against such an order an LPA would be maintainable.” 4. In view of the above referred Full Bench decision, the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. In view of the above referred Full Bench decision, the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. We, however, make it clear that we have other wise, not gone in to the merit and the dismissal of this appeal will not stand in the way of the appellants in seeking appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.