IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.766/2002 Decided on.22.4.2008 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others …Petitioners. Versus Roshan Lal …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the petitioners : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2812/1999 dated 9.11.2001. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent had filed original application No. 2812/1999 before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal primarily contending therein that he was engaged as a Beldar on 17th March, 1992 and was retrenched on 25.10.1998 without following clause 14 of the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the employer for convenience sake) filed a detailed reply to the original application preferred by the petitioner. The stand of the employer before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the original application in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal disposed of the original application on 9.11.2001 holding therein that the respondent- workman was entitled to get 10 days notice as per clause 14 of the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate has strenuously argued that the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 9.11.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition since according to him the matter was required to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court. Mr. Baldev Singh further contended that the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 have ceased to apply to the employees of the Board with effect from 22nd August, 1992. Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate has supported the order dated 9.11.2001. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 3 The workman was engaged as a Beldar on 17th March, 1992. He had worked in various spells with effect from 17th March, 1992 till 25th October, 1998. It is evident from the manday’s chart placed on record by the employer-Board that the workman had only worked for 42 days in the year 1998. It is admitted case of the parties that the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 had ceased to apply to the Board with effect from 22nd August, 1992. Once the Standing Orders had ceased to apply, the service conditions of the workmen are to be regulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently it is held that the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal erred in law by holding that the retrenchment of the respodnent was a nullity for non-compliance of the provisions of clause 14 of the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. There is considerable force in the submission of Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate that the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter based on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This court in H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Limited and others versus Raj Kumar and another, 2002 (3) Shim.L.C. 423 has held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases pertaining to daily wagers if they are claiming the benefit accruing 4 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court has held as under: “For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the Administrative Tribunal constituted and established under the Administrative Tribunal 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 an they 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.” We are of the considered opinion that the present lis was required to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court strictly as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal dated 9.11.2001 is set aside. However, taking into consideration that the workman was engaged on 17th March, 1992 and has worked with the employer up to 25th October, 1998, if he raises the industrial dispute, the same will be considered by the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the demand notice. The Conciliation Officer will submit the report to the State Government within a period of 6 weeks thereafter. The State will decide on its merits whether the reference is to be made to 5 the Labour Court or not within a period of four weeks after the receipt of the report from the Conciliation Officer. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge April 22, 2008 *Awasthi*