ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3658 of 2014, by which, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant relief prayed in the said application, by which, it was prayed to direct the respondent to pay wages under Section 17-B as per the minimum wages, original applicant workman has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Management has raised the Preliminary Objection with respect to maintainability of the present Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3658 of 2014 in absence of challenging original order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited vs. Union Bank of India, (2016) 4 SCC 696 , it is submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court appeal against the order dismissing the review when the original order is not challenged shall not maintainable. 3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length on the preliminary objection raised by Shri Shalin Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent management on maintainability of the present appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application when the original order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013 is not challenged. 4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the nature of relief sought in the Miscellaneous Civil Application, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited (supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3658 of 2014 as such cannot be said to be to review the order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 5957 of 1995. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3658 of 2014 as such cannot be said to be to review the order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 5957 of 1995. It is required to be noted that in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013, learned Single Judge as such allowed the said application preferred by the appellant herein and directed the respondent management to pay wages to the appellant workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that however what was being paid the last drawn salary which the applicant was receiving in the year 2002 i.e. at the time of termination which as such was a very meager amount i.e. Rs. 24.55 ps per day and therefore, the appellant herein preferred aforesaid Miscellaneous Civil Application in aforesaid Civil Application for appropriate order to direct respondent to grant and pay difference between current or minimum wages from 15.02.2002 and to direct respondent to continue to make monthly payments of current or minimum wages from 1.11.2014 until final disposal of Special Civil Application No. 5957 of 1995. That by impugned order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the said application which is subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, as such Miscellaneous Civil Application cannot be said to be to review and/or recall the order passed in Civil Application. The Miscellaneous Civil Application can be said to be either for further order and/or clarification and/or for further direction directing the respondent to pay wages under Section 17 B as per current Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, against the dismissal of such application, Letters Patent Appeal shall be maintainable without even challenging the order passed in Civil Application. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013 inasmuch as, as such said application was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the relief of wages under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been allowed and granted by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no question of challenging said order by the appellant herein. 6. Therefore, there is no question of challenging said order by the appellant herein. 6. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited (supra), by the Shri Mehta, learned counsel of respondent is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3658 of 2014 as such cannot be said to be a review application to review the order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013 and as observed hereinabove, the applicant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013 and therefore, there was no question of challenging the said order by the appellant herein by substantive appeal, the aforesaid decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court dismissed the petition confirming the order passed by the appropriate authority dismissing the claim of refund. That thereafter, the original petitioner filed the Review Application to recall and review the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition, which came to be dismissed, against which, i.e. against the dismissal of review application only petitioner filed appeal without challenging the order passed in main Special Civil Application dismissing the petition to that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that an appeal against the order rejecting the application for review of a judgment is not appealable as it is not against the basic judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that in view of provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Proceedings, an appeal against the order rejecting the application for review shall not be maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that real test is that even if the order passed in view is set aside, the order that is not challenged cannot be set aside. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it cannot be said that in absence to the challenge to the order passed in Civil Application No. 13382 of 2013, against the order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3658 of 2014, the Letters Patent Appeal shall not be maintainable. Under the circumstances, preliminary objection raised by Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent is hereby overruled.