IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1080 of 2002 Date of decision 7.4.2008 H.P.S.E.B. Petitioner Vs. Pardeep Kumar Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Ashish Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel for the respondent. Rajiv Sharma,J. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.1582 of 2000 on 27.11.2000. Briefly stated the respondent hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake, was engaged as daily wage Beldar in April, 1999. He was retrenched on 31.3.2000. He approached the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application primarily contending there in that his retrenchment was violative of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, herein after referred to as the Act for the brevity sake. He had also contended that he had completed 240 days before his retrenchment in a block of 12 calendar months. The learned 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Tribunal declared the retrenchment of the workman bad in law and the same was set aside. The petitioner (employer) was directed to re-engage the workman at the same place from where his services were terminated. He was not held entitled to any back wages but the period between his disengagement and re-engagement was directed to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had strenuously argued that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the O.A. since the matter was required to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court. He also contended that the workman had not completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. Mr. Ashish Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, had supported the order of the learned Tribunal dated 27.11.2000. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. Mr. Ashish Sharma has taken us through the man days chart filed with this petition clearly depicting therein that the workman had completed 259 days preceding his retrenchment effected on 31.3.2000. Since the workman had completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months it was mandatory for the employer to serve him with a notice under Section 25 (F) of the Act or in lieu thereof to pay him the compensation. Mr. Baldev Singh had argued that the question with regard to jurisdiction was specifically taken in the reply filed to the O.A. but the same has been brushed aside by the Tribunal at the time of disposal of the petition. The workman was engaged as is evident from the man days chart on 1.4.1999. The O.A. was filed by him assailing his retrenchment on 20.4.2000. The relief has been granted to him by the Tribunal on 27.11.2000. This petition was admitted on 31.7.2000. In these circumstances taking into consideration the engagement of the workman 3 in the year 1999 and the pendency of petition before this court, we will not set aside the order of the Tribunal in question on lack of jurisdiction at this stage. We are also convinced that since the workman had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment he was required to be served with a notice stipulated under Section 25(F) of the Act. Admittedly there is non compliance with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act rendering the retrenchment of the workman void ab initio. The Apex Court has held recently in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, 2008(1) Scale-615, that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power under that article can be exercised by the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. Their Lordships have held as under: “Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation is right in submitting that the High Court was exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power under that Article can be exercised by the High Court “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. As discussed by us here in above, the writ petition is dismissed. The retrenchment of the workman effected on 31.3.2000 is declared void ab initio. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. April 7, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma ), J (g) 4