The court established the jurisdiction of the Grievances Committee under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and upheld the employee's right to regularization based on continuous employment and recommendation.

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The employee had filed complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court contending that the employer indulged in unfair labour practice by not granting permanency and not paying the emoluments accordingly. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint, by the order dated 25th November, 2011 and directed the employer to grant permanency to the employee from 29th September, 2001 and to make available to him all the emoluments accordingly. The order passed by the Industrial Court was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 375 of 2012. One of the challenge was that the employee should have approached the Grievances Redressal Committee of the University under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”) and the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the employee. This Court by the order dated 11th February, 2013 disposed the petition recording that if the employee approaches the Grievances Committee within four weeks, the application/representation of the employee should be considered by the Grievances Committee according to law. After the above order was passed by this Court, the employee filed application under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 before the Grievances Committee on which the impugned order is passed, upholding the claim of the employee for permanency and emoluments. The employer being aggrieved by the order passed by the Grievances Committee has filed this petition.

4. Shri C.V. Jagdale, advocate for the employer has submitted that the Grievances Committee has recorded that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the employee under Section 57 of the Act of 1994 and therefore, the Grievances Committee could not have granted relief to the employee. It is further submitted that the Grievances Committee could not have reopened the matter and could not have endorsed the order passed by the Industrial Court upholding the claim of the employee. It is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and be set aside.

5. Shri U.J. Deshpande, learned advocate for the employee has submitted that the employee had been in the employment of the employer since 21st September, 1996 as Laboratory Peon/Attendant and though he was in continuous employment his services were not regularized and permanency was not conferred on him and therefore, he made representation to the management and the President of the society administering the college recommended that the claim of the employee be considered. It is submitted that the Industrial Court had considered all the relevant aspects in details and passed the order dated 25th November, 2011 and as the Grievances Committee found that the findings recorded by the Industrial Court were proper, it adopted those findings and passed the impugned order granting relief to the employee. It is further submitted that the Grievances Committee has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application filed by the employee and it cannot be said that the Grievances Committee is not having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application filed by the employee.

6. The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has supported the impugned order.

7. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the respective parties, I have examined the documents filed on the record and examined the legal submissions. Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 reads as follows :

“57. Grievances Committee.

(1) There shall be a grievances committee in each university to deal with the grievances of teachers and other employees of the university, colleges, institutions and recognised institutions and to hear and settle grievances as far as may be practicable within six months, and