IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 134 of 2008 Narayan Singh Tanganiya and others .……… Petitioners/Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. S.P.S. Pawar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we feel and find that the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners is not covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the labour court did not have any jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter. In our considered opinion, the writ petition was maintainable because the appellants/writ petitioners had approached this Court invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition ought not have been dismissed on the ground that the appellants/writ petitioners have alternative remedy of approaching the labour court. The impugned order dated 17th June, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is revived and restored to the original writ petition. 2 Before parting, we do wish to observe that anything stated in this judgment shall not be construed as expression of any opinion by us about the merits of the subject matter of the writ petition. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 7.8.2008 Avneet