IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1310 of 2001 Date of decision: 22.12.2009 State of H.P. Petitioner Versus Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner : Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition, the State has challenged the order dated 7.3.2001 (Annexure P-I), passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application filed by the respondents herein was allowed. The basic plea taken by the respondents was that they had completed 240 days service in the preceding calendar year and hence their services could not be terminated without following the procedure of law laid down under Section 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal up-held this plea and held that since no statutory notice as required by law was served upon the applicants before terminating their service, the termination of the service of the applicants was illegal. The main point raised before us that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application in view of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & others vs. Raj Kumar and another, 2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 423, wherein this Court held as follows:- “For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the Administrative Tribunal constituted and established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has no jurisdiction to entertain, deal with and decide an application for the protection or enforcement of rights created or liabilities imposed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law for the time being in force and the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court or an Authority constituted and/or established under the relevant statute. The orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal either under the provisions of the ID Act or any other law for the time being in force must necessarily be held to be null and void and without jurisdiction.” 3 The view of this Court has been up-held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of the above legal position, we have no other option but to set aside the order of the Learned Tribunal only on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents as workman employed in a lowly position and the legal position was not clear at the time when the Original Application was filed and disposed of by the Tribunal, we direct that the petitioner, if so advised, may take appropriate action/proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. In case, they do so within three months from today, the same shall not be defeated on the ground of the delay or limitation since they were prosecuting the proceeding before the Tribunal and this Court. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta) Judge. 22nd December, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja ) (vs) Judge.