Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.

There are 4 appellants. All are employees of the respondent Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), a body constituted under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (for short, the ‘Act’). They were, however, dis­missed from service by order dated January 13, 1996. They approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. High Court, by the impugned judgment dated April 18, 1998, refused to grant any relief to them and rather told them to avail alternative remedy provided under Section 142 of the Act by filing appeal against the orders of dismissal to the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission. Aggrieved these four employees have approached this Court.

2. Appellants contend that not only that the High Court wrongly re­fused to exercise its jurisdiction but the impugned judgment is con­trary to its earlier Division Bench decision in Ajaib Singh v. The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee1 wherein the High Court held that Section 142 did not provide any alternative remedy to a dismissed employee of the respondent.

3. It is alleged that on June 3, 1995 appellants were given the duty of taking pious saroop from Darbar Sahib to Calcutta. They were issued charge sheets on November 9, 1995 for committing bad acts during journey to Calcutta and for consuming liquor. The appellants filed their reply to the charge sheets explaining therein that the charge of taking liquor etc. was not true. President of the respondent after considering the replies filed by the appellants passed an order on December, 16 1995 imposing a fine on them. The appellants, it is stated, deposited the fine. In pursuance to the order of the President of respondent the appellants were re-instated in the service. When the matter stood concluded, the Executive Committee of the respondent, it appears, took up the matter again and without holding any further proceedings by order dated January 30, 1996 dismissed the appellants from service. Appellants state that their dismissal is wrong as it is against the service rules framed by the respondent and by filing writ petition in the High Court they sought quashing of their orders of dismissal. They submitted that under Rule 4 of the Service Rules an appeal lies to the Executive Committee against the order of punishment by the President of the respondent. Under the Rules Executive Commit­tee of the respondent is appellant authority. The appellants did not file any appeal before the Executive Committee and it, therefore, could not assume jurisdiction and order punishment of dismissal, par­ticularly when no inquiry as contemplated under Rule 4 was held. Respondent said that it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court and that the appellants, if they felt aggrieved, could challenge the orders of the Executive Committee by approaching the Judicial Commission under Section 142 of the Act. It is also stated that appeal lies to the Judicial Commission under Rule 4(b) of the Service Rules framed under Section 132 which have been framed in exercise of powers of the respondent under Section 69 of the Act. The respondent then says that Rule 4(b) was wrongly translated by the appellants and that its correct translation is as under :-

“(b) any employee under the control of management any department and Gurdwara may prefer an appeal against any order of any punishment, (suspension, dismissal), fine, warning etc.) within 30 days from the date that order is passed.

(i) any employee of the Shiromani Committee can be dismissed or degraded for his bad character, drinking or becoming a ‘Patit’ but before he dismissed or degraded, the allegations in the form of writ­ten charge sheet shall be supplied to him along with the statement of allegations, on the basis of which the charges are levelled against him. Representation against these charges shall be received from the employee within reasonable time and in case he denies these charges and pray