Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PRINCIPAL, K. J. SOMAIYA COLLEGE OF arts AND COMMERCE
Versus
MRS. NALINI V. KARNAD
Decided on, APRIL 13, 2006
Headnote:MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITIES ACT (35 OF 1994) - Section 59 - Reduction in rank by Management - Word "reduced in rank" - Meaning of - Means cases where employees shifted from higher grade to lower grade - Effect on pay scale - Shifting of employee to lower cadre amounts to reduction in rank - Then only person entitled to approach Tribunal under Section 59 of Act - Effect on pay scales not amounts to reduction in rank. - Provisions of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 is clear when it considers the word "reduction in rank" by the management. The word "reduction in rank" is a word which is well recognised and well defined under the Industrial and labour law. Judgment of the Apex Court though arose in a case under Article 311(2) of the Constitution it has considered the expression "rank" as meaning a persons qualifications in a cadre in the hierarchy of service to which he belongs. In courts opinion, for the purpose of "reduction in rank" there has to be a rank and the rank means a person must have a cadre and or a designation in a particular cadre in the hierarchy which has been specified in any employment. It cannot be that a person whose pay scales are effected would automatically amount to a reduction in rank. The word "reduced in rank" means those cases where the employees are shifted from higher grade to lower grade. Whether pay scale is effected or not if the employee is shifted to the lower cadre it would amount to reduction in rank and then only person is entitled to approach the Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITIES ACT (35 OF 1994) - Section 59 - The word "reduced in rank" means where employees are shifted from higher grade to lower grade - Merely pay scale is affected by changing a full time lecturer to part time lecturer would not constitute ’reduction in rank’ to attract jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 59. - The words ’reduced in rank’ mean those cases where the employees are shifted from higher grade to lower grade. Whether pay scale is affected or not if the employee is shifted to the lower cadre, it would amount to reduction in rank and then only person is entitled to approach the Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Where respondent No. 1’s rank is not reduced as she was a lecturer and continues to be a lecturer and merely her pay scale is affected by changing her from full time lecturer to part time lecturer would not be covered by virtue of provisions of Section 59 of the Act and thus, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal.
MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITIES ACT (35 OF 1994) - Section 59 - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ petition - Challenging order passed by Tribunal granting condonation of delay - Order discretionary in nature exercised by Tribunal - In exercise of writ jurisdiction such discretionary order should normally not be interfered with. - Court is of the opinion that in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order which is discretionary in nature exercised by the Tribunal for granting condonation of delay should normally not be interfered with.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Order of University and College Tribunal condoning delay in an appeal Order is discretionary Need not be interfered in writ jurisdiction.
Words and Phrases - Meaning of word "rank" - It means a person’s qualification in a cadre in the hierarchy of service to which he belongs. AIR 1996 SC 1197, Ref.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 was appointed on 8-7-1991 as a lecturer in subject of Kannada in Petitioner College. Respondent No. 1 holds qualification of B. A. and M. A. with Kannada as principal subject. On 5-10-1993 the respondent No. 1s services were terminated due to non-availability of required number of students in Kannada as the respondent No. 1 had declined to take the lectures in foundation course. Against the said order, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal being appeal No. 49 of 1996 before the Honble University and College Tribunal, bombay challenging the order of termination dt. 5-10-1993. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 teacher agreed to take lectures in foundation course for First year and Second year students and therefore the petitioner took back the said respondent in terms of the settlement arrived at in Appeal No. 49 of 1996. On 1-8- 1997 the petitioner converted the appointment of respondent No. 1 from full time lecturer to part time lecturer in foundation course because according to the petitioner one division each of first year and second year students of Commerce for the year 1997-1998 was reduced and due to which there was no sufficient work load for the respondent No. 1. On 30-3-1998 the respondent No. 1 approached the grievance committee and forwarded her grievance to the pro-vice chancellor, Chairman of the Grievance Committee, University of Mumbai. On 27-5-1998 the petitioner informed the University that the respondent No. 1 has been appointed as part time teacher because of non-availability of sufficient work load. On 11-1-1999 it is the case of the petitioners that both the parties were called before the Grievance Committee and the grievance committee informed the parties that the complaint before the grievance committee is not maintainable and the parties to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to redress their grievances. However, it is the case of the respondent that she was informed of grievance committee decision only on 8-8-2000 orally and therefore she has filed an appeal on 22-8-2000 before the University and College Tribunal. On 30-4- 2001 the respondent No. 1 has already attained the age of superannuation and has retired from services.
( 3 ) ON 6-4-2001, the Tribunal passed an order granting condonation of delay of 1075 days on the ground that the proceedings were pending before the grievance committee. It is this order dt. 6-4-2001 has been challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 4726 of 2001. Ultimately, on 8-4-2002, the tribunal disposed of the appeal finally and by the said order, the Tribunal has directed the respondent No. 1 to be reinstated in the post of full time teacher and has further directed that she should be given consequential benefits including the backwages as full time lecturer. Writ Petition No. 3142 of 2002 is filed challenging the said final order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 39 of 2000. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the power exercised by the Tribunal for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is totally perverse and baseless as no sufficient cause has been made out by the respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay of 1075 days. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the grievance committee rej
