IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.529 of 2002 Date of decision: 05.05.2008. State of H.P. and others ....Petitioners -Versus- Dumnu Ram ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For Respondent: Ms.Bindiya Sharma, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The respondent employee filed an O.A. before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (For short Tribunal) claiming that his services had been retrenched without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the order of termination was illegal. This petition was contested by the petitioners and they also raised a plea that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide such a question. The learned Tribunal has held that there is violation of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore set-aside the order of termination of the employee and further directed that he be re-engaged within 15 days. The main contention of Shri Mandhotra is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. This matter is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in H.P. Agro Industries Corporation 2 Ltd. and others vs. Raj Kumar and another, 2002 (3) Shim.L.C. 423. In that case this Court held as follows: “63.Keeping in mind the relevant provisions of the ID Act as well as other corresponding laws for the time being in force and the A T Act, there is no doubt in our minds that the ambit and scope as also object of both the Acts are distinct, separate and different. Independent forums, therefore, have been constituted by the competent legislature and it is obligatory on the aggrieved person to approach an appropriate forum constituted and established under the relevant law. It is also clear to us that in Premier Automobiles and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the Supreme Court laid down in no uncertain terms that where rights or obligations are created by the ID Act, the only remedy is to approach the forum created by the Act. The argument that the ratio in those cases would not apply to Administrative Tribunals inasmuch as the Supreme Court had held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and thus jurisdiction of only Civil court is ousted did not impress us. The Supreme Court had so held as the question had arisen regarding the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court vis-à-vis Civil Court. That, however, does not mean that the law laid down in those cases has limited application and it would not apply to Administrative Tribunals or Authorities other than Civil Court. Reading the judgment in the way in which it is sought to be suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents would make the principles formulated by the apex Court nugatory, otiose and ineffective. The words “only remedy” used by their Lordships of the Supreme Court will also become ineffective and redundant, which is not permissible. In our considered view, proper reading of the judgments of the Supreme Court and ratio laid down therein would mean and only mean that where the rights and obligations are created by the ID Act, an aggrieved person has to approach a forum created by that Act alone. Any other interpretation, in our opinion, would be inconsistent with and contrary to the law laid down in those cases. We are, therefore, unable to read the decision of the Supreme Court in any other manner. 64.Moreover, the legal position has also been substantially changed after the decision in L.Chandra Kumar. Between Sampath Kumar and L.Chandra Kumar, Administrative Tribunal was held to be an “effective, alternative institutional mechanism for judicial review” and a real substitute of all Courts including the High Court de jure as well as de 3 facto. That is not the position now. Sampath Kumar was overruled by L.Chandra Kumar and is no longer good law. As per settled legal position, an Administrative Tribunal constituted under the A T Act has retained its character as a Tribunal like any other Tribunal constituted under a statute and has to exercise its jurisdiction under the Act. It has no plenary or unlimited jurisdiction. It cannot travel beyond the four corners of the AT Act. In our opinion, therefore, it has no jurisdiction to enquire into the grievances made by an aggrieved party in the matters covered by the ID Act or any other corresponding law for the time being in force. 65.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.” The aforesaid judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. In view of the law laid down by this Court it is apparent that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the learned Tribunal is set-aside with liberty reserved to the respondent to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge May 5, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), PV Judge