ORAL JUDGMENT VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI 1. We have heard Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellant. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the impugned interim order dated 17.10.2013 passed by this Court, by which, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant interim relief in the writ petition filed by the appellant, wherein the award of the Labour Court has been challenged. 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 Article 227 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. 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 challenged 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 allows 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. It has been held in the Five Judges' Full Bench of this Court that in the writ petition decided against the award of the Labour Court, the writ petition should be essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable. For the same reason, if the interim relief is refused by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in our opinion, this appeal would not be maintainable. 5. Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant has placed a reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani reported in AIR 2002 SC 1147 . 6. We have carefully gone through the decision of the Apex Court, particularly paragraph-3. 5. Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant has placed a reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani reported in AIR 2002 SC 1147 . 6. We have carefully gone through the decision of the Apex Court, particularly paragraph-3. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that there was no material on record to accept the say of the employee to the effect that the respondent was engaged by a Contractor. Further we do not go into the merits of this case as the appeal itself is not maintainable. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed with liberty to seek an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 8. In view of disposal of the present appeal, Civil Application No.1833 of 2014 also stands disposed of.