IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.348 of 2003 Date of decision: 2.7.2008. State of H.P. and others ....Petitioners -Versus- Chaman Lal ….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: M/s.R.M. Bisht & Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.Gs. For Respondents: Mr.Rajnish Manikatala, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This writ petition by the State is directed against the order passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No.2952 of 2000 whereby the State has been directed to re-engage the respondent workman and has been directed to grant him seniority for the period he was dis- engaged. However, no back-wages have been granted to the workman. The brief facts are that the respondent-workman filed a petition before the Tribunal alleging that he had been working as Beldar/Mazdoor in Forest Range, Dharampur under Forest Division Jogindernagar since July, 1995. It was alleged that he had completed more than 240 days in the 12 months preceding his termination and 2 therefore his services could not have been terminated without taking recourse to and following the procedure laid down in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Tribunal on perusal of the mandays chart filed by the respondent-State itself came to the conclusion that in the 12 months preceding his termination the workman had served for more than 240 days. This mandays chart has also been filed before us as Annexure R-4. This shows that during the period 1.8.1999 to 31.7.2000 the respondent had completed 246 days. It is therefore obvious that the termination of the services of the workman amounted to retrenchment. The main challenge to the order of the learned Tribunal is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the order in view of the judgment delivered by this Court in H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. And others vs. Raj Kumar and another, 2002(3) Shim.L.C. 423, which judgment has been upheld by the Apex Court. There can be no dispute that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. However, we cannot discount the fact that the judgment in Raj Kumar’s case (supra) was delivered after the order had been passed by the Tribunal in the present case. Till that time the learned Tribunal had been passing the orders similar to the orders passed in the present case. On a perusal of the record we also find that in fact the respondent-workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months. Sh.Manikatala states that after the decision of the Tribunal the workman is still continuing to work as such. 3 Keeping in view the fact that indisputably the respondent was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Forest Department is an industry, the termination of the servicesof the workman is in patent violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, we do not propose to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. We are clearly of the view that the interest of justice will be better served if the impugned order is complied with. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case we do not interfere with the impugned order. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 2, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge