S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for hearing at admission stage.

2. Writ Petition Nos.11906 of 2016, 1561 of 2017, 1671 of 2017 and 2014 of 2017 seek implementation of the order passed by the grievance committee and confirmed by the management council. Whereas, Writ Petition Nos.4779 of 2017 and 4798 of 2017 assailed the order passed by the management council on the basis of the recommendation of the grievance committee. All these writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and involved common question of law. To avoid rigmarole they are decided by common judgment. The institution/employer assail the order passed by the management council on the recommendation of the grievance committee. The employees seek implementation of the order passed by the management council on the basis of the recommendation of the grievance committee.

3. The institution has basically assailed the order of the management council based on the recommendation of the grievance committee on the ground that the orders passed by the management council and the grievance committee cannot be enforced under law. It does not have a binding force.

4. Mr. Khandare, learned counsel for the institution submits that under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the grievance committee is constituted. Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 never intended to confer adjudicatory powers on the committee. The grievance committee under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act is not empowered to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and render the decision as adjudicatory process is not contemplated. The grievance committee is supposed to settle the grievances and if the parties to dispute arrive at amicable settlement, then only grievance committee can make recommendation to that effect to the management council. If no settlement is arrived at, the orders cannot be passed by the grievance committee. The word settlement in Section 57 of Maharashtra Universities Act cannot be read as having an adjudicatory power. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Phulan Rani and Another reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 555 and in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Ganpat Raj reported in (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 364 so also in a case of State of Punjab and Others Versus Jalour Singh and Others reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 660.

5. The learned counsel submits that the grievance committee as provided and constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, is not a committee of Appeal and invested with power of hearing of Appeals and committee is not a Tribunal constituted under the Universities Act. Under the scheme of the Act, there cannot be two Tribunals for adjudication of the disputes and therefore, the grievance committee cannot make any decision by usurping quasi judicial powers. The decision rendered by the committee is without authority of law and outside the purview and scope of the provision of Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The same cannot be enforced. It deserves to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.1 in the petition filed by the petitioner was continuously absent from the duties without leave from 2/3.4.2013 to 30.06.2013. They were absent without leave and permission from the Principal. The proposal made to submit leave application for the said period was not accepted by the respondents/employees. The dispute involved in the present matter is only to that extent. The respondent no.1 in both the petitions filed by the institution approached the grievance committee. The learned counsel submits that the complaints filed by the respondents/employees were factually incorrect. The respondent no.1 in both the petitions filed by the institution voluntarily abstained from the d