IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7498 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 29, 2011. National Institute of Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Research .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Central Labour Industrial Tribunal and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Chander Mohan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-Institute is aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Labour Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh rejecting the petitioner's objection seeking the transfer of industrial dispute raised by respondent No.2, before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner's objection was that since the petitioner- Institute moved an application disclosing that vide the Government of India notification dated 22nd April, 2008, the petitioner-Institute has been brought within the ambit of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and the dispute raised by respondent No.2 falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal and no industrial dispute in relation thereto can be C.W.P.No .7498 of 2011 2 raised before this Court or the Courts below. The Industrial Tribunal though has turned down the petitioner's objection on an erroneous premise, nevertheless the said objection is untenable in law. If respondent No.2 in his 'demand notice' or the `statement of claim' has specifically alleged the violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal constituted under the said Act alone have the jurisdiction to adjudicate such dispute. However, the service dispute not necessarily founded upon the violation of provisions of the Industrial Act would be referable to the Central Administrative Tribunal for its adjudication. That being so, the industrial dispute raised by respondent No.2 needs to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal only. However, the petitioner-Institute shall be at liberty to take a plea before the Industrial Tribunal at an appropriate stage that the nature of dispute is beyond the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or for that matter, the Industrial Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the same. Such an objection, if raised, shall be dealt with and decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. April 29, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE