CWP No.589 of 2006. 2.4.2008. Present: Mr.A.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. for respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner filed an O.A. before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal which was registered as O.A. No.3652 of 2004. By means of this O.A. the petitioner prayed that the respondent-State be ordered to grant work-charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1994 with all consequential benefits. This O.A. was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the issue and that the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute and therefore should approach the Industrial Tribunal. In our considered view, the petitioner had not raised an industrial dispute before the Tribunal. He, by means of this O.A., had in fact claimed that he be granted work-charge status which virtually amount to seeking regularization under the State Government. This is a dispute which squarely falls within the ambit of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. In fact, this matter is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.517 of 2004 titled Atma Ram vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 21.9.2004, has clearly held that when a workman claims regularization, the claim cannot be said to be an industrial dispute and falls within the purview of the definition of service matter. We respectfully follow the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the aforesaid case. We are therefore convinced that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. filed by the petitioner and the order dated March 2, 2006 passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge in this petition, suffers from an error of law. Petition is accordingly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to revive the O.A. to its original number and decide the same on merits in accordance with law after hearing the parties. ( Deepak Gupta),J. April 2, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma ),J. PV