HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 414 of 2003 Decided on: 16.7.2008. Chief Conservator of Forests and others ……… Petitioners. Versus Sher Singh ………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 petitioners: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms.Radhika Gautam, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State challenging the order, dated 24.7.2001, passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2523 of 1999. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) filed the Original Application before the learned Tribunal claiming that he had been working as daily rated Beldar with the Forest Department and had completed 240 days of without break in the period of 12 months prior to his termination. It was alleged that on 1st June, 1999, the services of the employee were illegally terminated without any notice to him and without following the procedure laid down in Section 16.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The case set up by the employee was that since there has been ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - infraction of the provisions of Section 16.25-F, his termination was illegal and be set aside. Reply was filed by the State and one of the grounds taken was that the petitioner was only engaged as a casual labourer and that he had left the work after May, 1999 of his own free will. According to the employer, the employee had abandoned his work. However, it was not denied that the employee had completed 240 days in 12 months prior to his termination. 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 16.25-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 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. 1st June, 1999. Ms.Radhika Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that consequent to the order - 3 - of the learned Tribunal, the State had re-engaged the services of the employee as far back as in 2001 and the respondent-employee is continuing to work till date. There is no dispute that the respondent-employee was a workman. It is also not disputed that the Forest Department would fall within the meaning of industry. Therefore, his services could have been terminated 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. The case of the petitioner-State that the respondent-employee had himself voluntarily abandoned his services is not supported by any material on record. The attending circumstances, especially the fact that the Original Application was filed within a few months of the alleged abandonment of the services clearly shows that the respondent-employee had not abandoned his job. Therefore, though we are of the view that the learned Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the original application, we do not feel that this is a fit case where we should 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. In view of the above discussion, we direct that in case the respondent- employee has been re-engaged and is continuing in service till date, his services shall not be dispensed with and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In case the services of the respondent-employee have already been - 4 - dis-engaged and he is not in employment, then the order of the learned Tribunal is set aside and it is directed that the employee would be permitted to ventilate his grievance before the appropriate forum. In such an eventuality, if the respondent-employee approaches the State for making a reference in terms of Industrial Disputes Act within three months from today, the same shall not be turned down on the ground of laches or delay. In case an application is made by the employee within the aforesaid period, the State shall make a reference within three months of the filing of the application and the Labour Court shall also decide the case as early as possible. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Interim order shall stand vacated. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. July 16, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.