IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 475 of 2001 Date of Decision: 13th October, 2009 ________________________________________________________________ State of H.P … Petitioner Versus Ms.Monika Gupta. … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?No For the Petitioner : S/Sh.R.M.Bisht and Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate Generals For the Respondents : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner had filed an Original Application before the learned erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal claiming therein that the termination of her services is not in accordance with law. This Original Application was allowed by the learned Tribunal on the grounds that the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had been violated. The State was directed to re-engage the applicant but the applicant was not held entitled to back wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the State. The main argument raised by Sh.Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State is that the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the Original Application. This - 2 - matter is in fact no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in H.P Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others Versus Raj Kumar and another 2002(3)SLC 423 clearly held that the Administrative Tribunals constituted and established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 have 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 and the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. This judgment has been upheld by the Apex Court. In view of the law laid down by this Court as upheld by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the State for making reference of the dispute in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also made clear that the period spent in prosecuting the Original Application as well as the time spent in contesting the writ petition shall not be taken into consideration while deciding whether the claim has been made within a reasonable time or not. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. October 13, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. (m) - 3 - - 4 - In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla. CWP No. 739 of 2007. Judgment reserved on: 18.7.2007. M/s Priman Constructions ….Petitioner Versus. State of HP & Ors. …Respondents. Judgment for consideration, please. (Deepak Gupta ),J I agree/ do not agree. ( V.K.Ajhuja ), J. List the CWP for pronouncement of judgment on ________ 2007. (Deepak Gupta ), J. Court Secretary. - 5 -