HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 621 of 2003 Decided on: 17.7.2008. State of H.P. ……… Petitioner. Versus Raghu Nath ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): This petition is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 3.11.1999 whereby the petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the petitioner- State was directed to re-engage the respondent. The undisputed facts are that the respondent- employee was engaged as daily waged Beldar by the petitioner-State on 1.7.1997. He continued to work as such till 31.7.1998. In the immediate 12 months prior to his termination, the respondent had completed 265 days of service. - 2 - The respondent-employee filed OA No. 2162/99 before the learned Tribunal alleging that his services have been terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner- State contested the OA mainly on the ground that the work was not available and, therefore, the services of the employee were dispensed with. It was, however, not denied that the respondent- employee is a workman and Public Works Department (PWD) is an industry. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order, has come to the conclusion that since the employee had completed 240 days in the period of 12 months prior to the termination of his services, it was incumbent upon the State to have issued notice to the employee in terms of Section 25-F. Since this has not been done, the order of termination was set aside and the employee was directed to be re-engaged in service. The main contention raised by Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, is that in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others v. Raj Kumar and another, 2002 (3) Shim.L.C. 423, the - 3 - Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 have no jurisdiction to entertain, deal with or decide an application for the protection or enforcement of rights or liabilities imposed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There can be no dispute with this contention of law. However, in the present case, we find that even as per the averments made by the State, the respondent- employee had completed 240 days of service in 12 months prior to the dispensation of his services w.e.f. 9.3.1998. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that consequent to the order of the learned Tribunal, the State had re-engaged the services of the employee as far back as in 1999 and the respondent-employee is continuing to work till date. In fact the petitioner- State in its writ petition has also admitted this fact. We have also been informed that the services of the respondent-employee now stand regularized There is no dispute that the respondent-employee was a workman. It is also not disputed that the P.W.D., would fall within the meaning of industry. Therefore, the services of the employee could have been terminated - 4 - only in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, no notice was given to the respondent-employee nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The services of the respondent-employee were terminated in total violation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, though we are of the view that the learned Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the original application, we feel that this is a fit case where we should not exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity. This Court can always refuse to entertain a writ petition if it is found that the interest of justice has been served by the impugned order, even though the said order suffers from some illegal infirmity. We have taken this view because admittedly the termination of the service of the respondent is in utter violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is also proved on record that the respondent was re-engaged in compliance with the orders of the learned Tribunal and has been working with the Board for the last several years and his services have now been regularized. - 5 - In view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. July 17, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), S. Judge.