JUDGMENT VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. 1. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. 2. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant-original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1701 of 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 3. In the writ petition, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCS) No. 920 of 1999. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that the writ petition was titled as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. 5. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has not issued a writ of certiorari and the learned Single Judge has exercised powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Five Judges' Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Firoze M. Mogal and Others, 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. 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 changed only by way of a Special Leave Petition be fore the Supreme Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid 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 otherwise, not gone into the merit and the dismissal of this appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant in seeking appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 8. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 1996 of 2014 also stands dismissed.