IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6418 of 2010. Decided on: 12.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Shiv Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(i) The applicant prays that he may be engaged and allowed the services of Adda Incharge in the Office of Respondent No.3 as before. (ii) That the applicant may kindly e granted all the service and economic benefits quite at par with the same category of employees in the office of the Respondent No.3. 2. In reply at para 3, it is stated as follows:- “The contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. Since, the applicant was not appointed by the competent authority in accordance with the Act and the Rules, in view of the submission made above he has - 2 - no locus-standi to seek reinstatement. Further, assuming, not conceeding that even if the applicant was appointed and had worked till 30.5.1998, then also, the action of the reply Corporation in terminating his services on account of non-availability of work, is fair, just and legal. The factum that the applicant had completed more than 240 days in a year preceeding his disengagement is of no help to the applicant, as the Respondent Corporation is not a industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) nor the applicant is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act respectively.” 3. We do not find any reason hence to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the competent authority to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact, even on the contention of the petitioner that he has completed 240 days. It is for the petitioner to pursue the matter in appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Without prejudice of such liberty to the petitioner, this petition is dismissed, making it also clear that in the event of petitioner pursuing such remedy, he shall not be non-suited on the ground of delay since the petitioner had been bonafidely pursuing his case initially before the Tribunal and thereafter before this Court. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 12, 2010. (sck).