IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2257 of 2011 alongwith CWP Nos. 2258, 2259 and 2260 of 2011. Date of Decision: 21.9.2011 CWP No. 2257 of 2011. Mohinder Singh …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents CWP No. 2258 of 2011. Ravi Dutt …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents CWP No. 2259 of 2011. Suresh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents CWP No. 2260 of 2011. Ishwar Singh …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. (in all the petitions) For the Respondent-State: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent-University: Mr. B.S.Attri, Advocate. 2 Deepak Gupta, J (oral) 1. All the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgement since similar questions of law and facts are involved. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners were working as Beldars with Dr.Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan. Their services were terminated in the year 2002. Thereafter they filed original applications before the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal and the same were allowed in April 2004. The services of the petitioners were thereafter taken over by the University on contract basis. They were again disengaged between December 2004 and March 2005. They filed contempt petitions, which were rejected by a Division Bench of this Court with liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue their surviving grievances in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate form. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present petitions. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services have been terminated in violation of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The claim of the petitioners is that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated. 3 Therefore, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the authorities under the said Act. Since the petitioners have an efficacious, alternative remedy they cannot directly approach this Court. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- 1. That in case the petitioners file their claim before the Labour Officer he shall forthwith sent the same to the Labour Commissioner who shall, in case there is an industrial dispute, refer the matter to the Labour Court. It is made clear that the period during which the contempt petitions and the present writ petitions were pending shall not be taken into consideration and the same shall not be considered as a delay in approaching the forum. The Labour Commissioner shall make references within six weeks of the receipt of the report of the Labour Officer. 2. Once the references are made to the Labour Court, the Labour Court shall ensure that the cases are disposed of within six months of the receipt of the references. 4. With these observations the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. 21st September, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.