Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Santosh Kushwah vs D And H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd.
2024 Latest Caselaw 14152 MP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14152 MP
Judgement Date : 14 May, 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Santosh Kushwah vs D And H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. on 14 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                        WA No. 1047 of 2024
                                        (SANTOSH KUSHWAH Vs D AND H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD.)

                           Dated : 14-05-2024
                                 Shri Karpe Prakhar Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant.


                                 The office has raised objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ
                           Appeal, since the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                           India and consequently order was passed exercising the power under Article
                           227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this intra-Court Appeal is not

                           maintainable.
                                 Learned counsel for the appellant/employer placed reliance on the Full
                           Bench decision of this Court in case of Shailendra Kumar Vs. Divisional
                           Forest Officer reported in (2017) 4 MPLJ 109.
                                 In our view, the Court has partly allowed the petition, thereby modifying
                           the award passed by the Labour Court. Merely because employer has filed the
                           petition with a caption that it is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                           India, it will not decide the character of order passed by learned Single Judge in
                           the instant case. It is mainly the nature of power exercised which will determine

                           whether the impugned order is passed under Article 226 or under Article 227 of
                           the Constitution of India. The Full Bench opined as under :-

                                ''16. Therefore, we find that an order of the Labour Court or an
                                Industrial Tribunal is amenable to the writ of certiorari under
                                Article 226 of the Constitution. In exercise of writ of certiorari,
                                the High Court demolishes the order which it considers to be
                                without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute
                                its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The
                                Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
                                reported as T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 15-05-2024
10:20:38
                                                                2
                                held as under:-
                                 "7. The second essential feature of a writ of certiorari is that
                                 the control which is exercised through it over judicial or quasi-
                                 judicial tribunals or bodies is not in an appellate but
                                 supervisory capacity. In granting a writ of certiorari the
                                 superior court does not exercise the powers of an appellate
                                 tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon
                                 which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be
                                 based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without
                                 jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its
                                 own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The offending
                                 order or proceeding so to say is put out of the way as one
                                 which should not be used to the detriment of any person [Vide
                                 Per Lord Cairns in Walshall's Overseers v. London and
                                 North Western Railway Co., (1879) 4 AC 30, 39.]"
                                1 7 . But issuance of the directions after setting aside an order
                                passed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226, is only
                                under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court
                                exercises composite jurisdiction which will make intra Court
                                appeal maintainable. Thus the order passed by the Division
                                Bench in Superintendent, Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia
                                Regional Agricultural Research Station, Ujjain's Case
                                (Supra) does not lay down correct principal of law and is thus
                                overruled.
                                                                           (Emphasis Supplied)
                                 In view of the Full Bench decision, this writ appeal is maintainable. We
                           are unable to hold that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
                           was in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only.
                                 The objection is overruled.
                                 Issue notice to the respondent.

Ms. Rachana Zamindar accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. I.A. No. 3647/2024 has been filed seeking interim stay of the impugned order. Since, already an order staying the impugned order has been passed in

connected cases filed by the employer, therefore, no further orders are necessary in this appeal. Accordingly, I.A. stands closed.

List this case alongwith W.A. No. 834/2024.



                              (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                 (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                       JUDGE                                             JUDGE

                           Vatan









 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter