t} HIGH C.OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BltASPUR Writ Petition No.6151/2000 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, ChiefJustice & Hon'bto Shri D.R.Deshmukh, J. Petitioner »^s& 'i- ksisy Respondents Ashok Mishra S/o Shrt" Ram Naresh Mishra aged about33 yeare, Ex-Time Kseper (Daity Wages), Sub Division No. 1 , Bijapur, District Dantewara (M.P.). Versus 1. State of Chhattishgar, Through: Secretary. Public Works Deptt. Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, RAIPUR (C.G.). 2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, RAIPUR (M.P.). 3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bijapur, ^Nest Baster Division, District Dantewara (M.P.). 4. Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Trlbunal, Pnncipat Bench,JABALPUR (M.P.'). C.J. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate fbr the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25.07.2006) The following orat order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK, The petitioner white working as daily wager in the establishment of Publto Works Department. Bijapur in West Bastar Division^ his services were terminated under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after complying with the mandatory provisions contained there in. The said action was assailed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal by its order dated 18/2/2000 following its own eariier order dated 29.2.2000 in O.A.No.623/2000 and another order dated 27.7.200) in OA.No .3289/2000 dismissed the Original Application ^ 2- t; .,l!!SS-X No.2481/2000 filed by the petittoner. The validity of the same has been chatlenged in this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondents resorting to provisions of SecBon 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 after complying with the mandatory requirements of paying one month's nottee pay and retrenchment » compensation and gratuity. The petitioner, on the date of termination of vutZO^>^' his serviceSt was/holding any civit post under the State nor could it be said that he was recruited to any civil post. In that view of the matter, ttie jurisdiction of the Tribunal is specifically barred by the provisions of Section 15 ofthe Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 2. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip RaosahebDeshmukh Judge ;t^W]^r^ dli