JUDGMENT : 1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, learned counsel for the respondents, to the effect that the instant Special Appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. The writ petition in the instant case, was instituted against an order passed by the Labour Court on 04.10.2006. The learned Single Judge by the judgment and order rendered on 21st August, 2018 was pleased to allow the writ petition. 3. The provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are being extracted below for convenience to determine the issue of maintainability of the Special Appeal:- "[5. Special appeal :- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction [or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act] of one Judge.]" 4. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is in respect of an order made by the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed the said order, in pursuance of a reference made to it under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court exercises its jurisdiction under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is relatable to Entry 24 List II to the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Entry 24 List II of the VII Schedule reads thus: "24. The Labour Court exercises its jurisdiction under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is relatable to Entry 24 List II to the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Entry 24 List II of the VII Schedule reads thus: "24. Industries subject to the provisions of 2 [entries 7 and 52] of List I" 5. The order of the Labour Court, assailed before the learned Single Judge, falls within the ambit of the phrase "Judgment, order or award" in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII, of the High Court Rules, 1952 of a tribunal constituted under a legislation referable to List II Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. 6. The bar to the special appeal contemplated under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is clearly attracted to the facts of this case. In these facts, the special appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is not maintainable. 7. It would be apposite to reinforce this narrative, with authorities in point. 8. The provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5, also came to be interpreted by a learned Division Bench of this Court, in Vajara Yojna Seed Farm, Kalyanpur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P. Kanpur, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496 . 9. In the case of Vajra Yojna Seed Farm (supra), the award of a Labour Court was challenged before the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge, the appellant had instituted a Special Appeal. The Division Bench in paragraph no. 49 of the Vajra Yojna Seed Farm (supra) held the special appeal to be not maintainable: "From the above, it is clear that judgment of the Apex Court in Central Mine Planning's case (supra) is not applicable and it cannot be held that under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and Clause 10 of our Letters Patent as surviving special appeal is maintainable against the award of the Labour Court. By Clause 5 of 1981 Amendment special appeal has been taken away with regard to any judgment, order or award of Tribunal." 10. A Full Bench of this Court, while determining the issue of maintainability of a special appeal, against an order of a learned Single Judge in Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 10 AIR Allahabad 46 (FB) ruled as follows: "14. A Full Bench of this Court, while determining the issue of maintainability of a special appeal, against an order of a learned Single Judge in Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 10 AIR Allahabad 46 (FB) ruled as follows: "14. Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances: 1. The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court; 2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction; 3. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court; 4. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction; 5. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by (i) the tribunal, (ii) Court or (iii) statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act. with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; 6. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of (i) the Government or (ii) any officer or (iii) authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India." 11. The judgments in the case of Vajara Yojna Seed Farm, Kalyanpur (supra) and Sheet Kumar (supra), were followed by a Division Bench of this Court, in Bhaguati Prasad Yadva Vs. The judgments in the case of Vajara Yojna Seed Farm, Kalyanpur (supra) and Sheet Kumar (supra), were followed by a Division Bench of this Court, in Bhaguati Prasad Yadva Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2014) 10 ADJ 176 . 12. In light of the preceding narrative, the instant appeal is not maintainable. 13. Special Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.