( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellants and also heard the learned Additional public Prosecutor and Sri K. Someswar kumar, Sri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, sri N. Chandra Rao, Sri V. Rajendra Babu, sri Surendra Desai, Sri P. Nageswar sree, Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, Sri Koka raghava Rao, Sri P. Venugopala Rao, sri K. Sai Babu and K. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel representing the respondents, in all these matters. ( 2 ) SRI B. G. Ravindra Reddy, the learned counsel representing the Employees State insurance Corporation-appellant in all these criminal appeals, would submit that the main question, which had been raised is that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied in relation to the prosecution under Employees State Insurance Act. But, however, the learned counsel would submit that in the light of the view taken by the division Bench of this Court in Ramcharan agarwal v. Employees State Insurance corporation that if no notification was issued by the High Court conferring powers on presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal to exercise powers of Judicial Magistrate of first Class as provided under Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity code), this question cannot be agitated in these proceedings. In view of the decision of this Court (cited supra), inasmuch as there was no notification issued by the High Court conferring powers on Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal to exercise powers of judicial Magistrate of First Class as provided under Section 13 of Criminal Procedure code, 1973, all these appeals shall stand dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It is needless to say that inasmuch as the impugned orders had been passed by the concerned Tribunals having no jurisdiction, the said orders are non est in the eye of law. Further, liberty is given to the appellant in all these matters to pursue the legal remedies, if any, available to the appellant in accordance with law. ( 3 ) IT is also brought to the notice of this court that subsequent there to in pursuance of the judgment of the Division Bench notification had been issued conferring powers on the Tribunals specified supra. ( 3 ) IT is also brought to the notice of this court that subsequent there to in pursuance of the judgment of the Division Bench notification had been issued conferring powers on the Tribunals specified supra. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel also represented that inasmuch as the initial defect of the competency of the Tribunal to entertain these matters had been cured by the subsequent event of issuance of notification, these matters may be remitted to the concerned. Tribunals for the purpose of adjudication on merits. ( 5 ) IN view of the fact that on the relevant dates, the concerned Tribunals had no jurisdiction for want of notification, inasmuch as this is a jurisdictional question, the same cannot be rectified and hence, liberty had been given to the appellant to pursue the legal remedies, if any, in accordance with law. It would not be just and proper to remit these matters at this stage. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, all the criminal appeals shall stand dismissed subject to the above observations.