Prashant Kumar,J : A common question of law arose in these appeals, therefore, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this judgment.

2. The appellants have challenged the order dated 30.8.2006 in Case No. 33 of 2006 (JET) and Case No. 32 of 2006(JET) whereby and whereunder the Jharkhand Education Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid cases as the said cases have been filed beyond the period of limitation.

3. It appears that the appellant of A.C.(S.B.) No. 19 of 2006 was employed in Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Bokaro on the post of teacher. However her services has been terminated on some charges. Thereafter she filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Bokaro vide Title Suit No. 31 of 2001 on 04.06.2001 challenging the order of termination. It further appears that during pendency of aforesaid suit, Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been enacted and Jharkhand Education Tribunal established. Accordingly, an application was filed before the Tribunal, which was instituted as Case No. 33 of 2006 (JET).

4. The case of appellant of A.C.(S.B.) No. 20 of 2006 is that he was working on the post of Principal, Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Chas, Bokaro. His services has been terminated in most arbitrary and mala fide manner. It is further stated that against the order of termination, he has filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Bokaro vide Title Suit No. 29 of 2001. However, after establishment of Jharkhand Education Tribunal, he filed an application in the Tribunal which was instituted as Case No. 32 of 2006 (JET).

5. It appears that both the aforesaid cases I.e. Case No. 33 of 2006(JET) and Case No. 32 of 2006(JET) have been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.8.2006 on the ground that the same have been filed beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed under section 10(i)(a) of the Act. Against the aforesaid orders, these appeals filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that section 8 of the Act provides that the Tribunal have all the jurisdiction, power and authority, vested in all other courts, for adjudication of dispute relating to all the matters concerning the service condition of the employee of the Educational Institutions. It is then submitted that the appellants' services have been terminated by the Management of the Institute and they have filed Title Suit in the court of Munsif, Bokaro, challenging the order of termination. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 came into force, therefore from the date of enforcement of the said Act, the civil court, Bokaro has no power to entertain the aforesaid suit. Accordingly, the appellants filed the present case in the Jharkhand Education Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. It is submitted that since the civil court have no power to entertain the suit, therefore, the present applications are maintainable in the Tribunal. Thus, the order of Tribunal is against the provisions of section 8 of the Act.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per section 10(i)(a), the Tribunal can admit only such applications for hearing in which impugned order was issued during the period of three years preceding the date of establishment of Jharkhand Education Tribunal. It is submitted that the Act has come into force in the year 2005 and the order of termination of the appellants was issued sometime in the year 2001 i.e. prior to three years from the date of constitution of Tribunal. Accordingly, as per the provision contained under section 10(i)(a) of the Act, both the cases filed by the appellants in the Tribunal are time barred, therefore the Tribunal has rightly rejected both the cases.

8. In the present appeals only question arose for consideration is " whether the cases filed by the appellants were time barred as provided under Section 10(i)(a) of the Act ?" For better appreciation of the aforesaid points it is appropriate to quote sectio