The Labour Court has jurisdiction to award unpaid salary to an employee of a private school for the period prior to the order of termination, dismissal, or removal or reduction in rank, if such claim is not made before the School Tribunal.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33-C(2) - MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATION ACT, 1977 - SECTIONS 9, 11 - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT AND SCHOOL TRIBUNAL - UNPAID SALARY CLAIM - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a private school, challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to award unpaid salary to the respondent, an employee, for the period from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983. The petitioner contended that the dispute could only be agitated before the School Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to award unpaid salary to the respondent. The Court observed that the respondent could not have claimed the unpaid salary from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 as the main and sole relief from the School Tribunal. The Court further observed that the expression “to give arrears of emoluments to the employee for such period as it may specify” occurring in Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 11 of M.E.P.S. Act only means the direction of payment of arrears of emoluments to the employee subsequent to the order contemplated under section 9 and impugned, and such order has been declared illegal or improper by the School Tribunal and not the unpaid salary or arrears of salary or arrears of emoluments prior to the date of order challenged.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to award unpaid salary to the respondent for the period from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to award unpaid salary to the respondent. The Court observed that the respondent could not have claimed the unpaid salary from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 as the main and sole relief from the School Tribunal. The Court further observed that the expression “to give arrears of emoluments to the employee for such period as it may specify” occurring in Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 11 of M.E.P.S. Act only means the direction of payment of arrears of emoluments to the employee subsequent to the order contemplated under section 9 and impugned, and such order has been declared illegal or improper by the School Tribunal and not the unpaid salary or arrears of salary or arrears of emoluments prior to the date of order challenged.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Labour Court.

JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:—The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur, dated 6-6-1989 is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award unpaid salary to the respondent No. 1 for the period from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 because the said dispute could be only agitated before the School Tribunal constitued under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the order passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur impugned in the present writ petition is liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. In opposition to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is contended by the contesting respondent No. 1 that the claim of the unpaid salary for the period from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1993 could not have been made by the respondent No. 1 before the School Tribunal and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not barred.

3. To appreciate the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, brief relevant facts may be adverted to first. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioners in Sangam Higher Primary School as a Clerk and her services were terminated w.e.f. 30-4-1983. The respondent No. 1 challenged the same termination before the School Tribunal at Nagpur and the School Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 challenging the termination order. After the appeal was dismissed by the School Tribunal on 27-7-1984 the respondent No. 1 filed a review application before the School Tribunal praying therein that she has not been paid the salary from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 and, therefore necessary directions be issued to the petitioners. This review application was rejected by the School Tribunal vide its order dated 3-10-1984 observing that the appeal of the respondent No. l has already been dismissed and for back wages she should approach the Education Officer and if advised, file the civil suit since the matter did not lie in the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal. On rejection of the review application, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Nagpur and claimed her unpaid salary for the period from 1-4-1982 to 30-4-1983 amounting to Rs. 3,156.50. The application was filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 33-C(2) on 14-11-1984. The petitioners contested the application mainly on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction since the matter has already been tried by the School Tribunal and therefore the application under section 33-C(2) deserves to be dismissed.

4. The labour Court held the inquiry and after hearing the parties passed the order directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 2840.85 towards unpaid salary along with interest at 15% per annum from the date of award till payment was actually made with costs of Rs. 500/-.

5. As aforesaid the order passed by the Labour Court on 6-6-1989 in the application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is under challenge before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed either before this Court or before the Labour Court that the petitioner was an “Industry” and that the respondent No. 1 was a workman. The Labour Court also observed that it has not been challenged before it that the petitioner was not an “Industry” or that the respondent No. 1 was not a workman and the said observation of the labour Court has not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is thus clear that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the School Tribunal is constituted and the respondent No. 1 has challenged her termination before the School Tribunal, the claim for unpaid salary would have been only made before the School T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis