Peoples Welfare Society and another vs Second Labour Court and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(Bom) 564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
F.I. Rebello, J.
People’s Welfare Society another .....
Petitioners.
Versus
Second Labour Court others .....
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2329 of 1996, decided on 22-10-1997.
Advocates appeared:
R.S. Pareodkar, for petitioners.
A.G. Mujumdar, A.G.P., (or the respondent No. 2.
B.M. Khan, for respondents Nos. 3 to 9.
V.A. Dhabe, for the respondent No. 10.

Headnote:Section 2(s)-500 Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Sch. IV, Item I.
       Section 30(2)-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2-Conslitution of India, Article 14-Jurisdiction for interim relief-Only the withholding of grants for excess staff is not sufficient reason for termination, because he can be paid by private fund of College, further employees of private institutions are not entitled to seek protection under Article 14 of Constitution.-The scheme of the ill Act and the MRTU and PULP Act has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of, Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate, reported in AIR 1996 SC 285, wherein the Apex Court has held that the MRTU and PULP Act is supplemental Legislation to the ID Act. Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act has for the first time given right in the form of remedy to a person who falls within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act to move the Court under the MRTU and PULP Act to preempt his termination from service. Such a right is not traceable under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. On the contrary Section 61 of the Maharashtra Universities Act it has been made clear that an appeal filed will have to be rejected if, it does not come within the predicates of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. Thus, clearly the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to decide a case of threatened dismissal or termination. Even, otherwise, it can be seen that the jurisdiction under the MRTU and PULP Act is not totally ousted. It is only in the matter of dismissal, removal or where services are otherwise terminated or where an employee reduced in rank would a remedy be available to an aggrieved employee. In other matters pertaining to his conditions of services the remedy is not available under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. Thus there is no total ouster of jurisdiction insofar a Maharashtra Universities Act is concerned.
       Schedule IV, Item 1-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(5)-Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Sections 59 and 61-Management of private school institution issued notice to non-teaching employee purporting to terminate their services-By virtue of Section 30(2) power has been conferred on Court to prevent an employer from terminating the services of employees-Thus, jurisdiction of Labour Court is not ousted-Employer complied with the requirement of the Act and Rules-Employees belong to private schools-Termination of service-No violation of natural justice-Direction issued for disposal of complaints.
       Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
       Section 59-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 30(2), Sch. IV, Item I-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s)-Jurisdiction of Labour Court- The provisions of MRTU & PULP Act and 10 Act are supplementary to each other, the MRTU Act provides for remedy against threat for dismissal or termination, whereas Maharashtra Universities Act lacks any preemptive provision clearing that appeal has to be rejected unless it falls within predicates of Section 59.
       Sections 59 and 61-See Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV, Item 1.

JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 had filed complaint under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act) against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 as also against the present respondents Nos. 2 and 10. It was the contention of the complainants before the Labour Court that the respondents before the Labour Court were engaged in unfair labour practice falling under Item No. 1 in Schedule IV of the Act. There are other consequential reliefs prayed for. An application for interim relief was also filed. The respondents before the Labour Court filed their reply and raised preliminary objection to the effect that in view of section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 the Court has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as remedy was provided under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. It is further submitted that the services of the non-teaching employees in the Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University were governed earlier by the Nagpur University Act and after its repeat, by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.. It was contended that as such the complainants could not have preferred the complaint under the M-R-T-U. P. U.L.P. Act.

2. The application for interim relief was taken up for hearing. The Labour Court in para 7 addressed itself to the question as to whether the provisions contained under the Maharashtra Universities Act bar the jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted under section 6 of the M.R.T.U. P. U.L.P. Act, 1971. Relying on certain judgments the Labour Court held that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the M.R.T.U. P. U.L.P. Act, 1971. In so far as merit is concerned, the Labour Court held that the services of the complainants were terminated in contravention of the principles of natural justice and as such the termination orders dated 29-8-1996 are illegal and improper. It was the contention of the petitioners herein that they have acted on the letter dated 22-5-1996 wherein the Deputy Director informed them that there were excess employees and salary grant would not be sanctioned by the Government and the responsibility would be that of the management. It may be mentioned that the services of the complainants were terminated on the ground that they have become surplus as per the norms prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22-2-1980. The Labour Court held that the petitioners had not proved that there is fall on the strength of the students for the academic season of 1996-97 and in the absence of proof it had to be held that the complainants had not become surplus as per the norms prescribed by Government Resolution dated 22-2-1980 and, therefore, directed the petitioners to continue the services of the complainants.

3. The petitioners had issued notice dated 29th August, 1996 to the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 informing that the Joint Director, Higher Education, Nagpur, had disapproved the salary of 10 non-teaching employees appointed in excess. It is further pointed out that their appointment to the posts is illegal and that the management of the society had decided to terminate their services by giving one month's prior notice and that their services will be terminated with effect from 30th September, 1996. The respondents Nos. 3 to 9 preferred the complaint on 12th September, 1996. The perior of one month would have expired on 30th September, 1996. Interim relief was grantee on 25-9-1996. The said order came to be challenged in this petition. On 2nd November, 1996 this Court issued Rule. However, interim relief was refused.

4. With this background the issue as to whether the jurisdiction of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Court to entertain an application by rion-teaching employees has to be considered. Section 59(1) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 reads as under:

"59. Right of appeal.-(1) Notwithstanding anything

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(Bom) 564

Cases Referred (3)