The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Private Colleges Act and the Industrial Disputes Act can coexist, and there was no inconsistency between the two acts. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and the overriding effect of the Private Colleges Act.

S. Nagamuthu, J.

Whether the provisions of the “Industrial Disputes Act” (hereinafter referred as ‘I.D. Act’) are applicable to a non-teaching staff working is a self financing Private college governed by the provisions of the “Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, “1976” (hereinafter referred as ‘Private Colleges Act’) is the question raised on the ground that Section 52 of the Private Colleges Act has got overriding effect on the I.D. Act, so as to make it inapplicable for such an employee, a learned single Judge of this Court answered the question in the negative. Aggrieved over the same, the management of the college is before this Court-with this writ appeal.

2. The second respondent herein, was admittedly a watchman employed in the appellant college. When he was dismissed from the College, he raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.D. No.80 of 2003. A preliminary objection was raised before the Labour Court, by the appellant/management that in respect of the appellant college, the I.D. Act is not applicable and therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was contended before the Labour Court that Section 52 of the Private Colleges Act has got overriding effect over the I.D. Act and since there are in-built safeguards provided for such employees in the Act itself, it is not within the competence of the Labour Court to entertain the dispute and instead, the aggrieved should have gone for remedy available under the Private Colleges Act. The Labour Court proceeded to decide the preliminary objection regarding maintainability and by order dated 3. 2006 held that the Dispute is maintainable. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P. (MD). No.4926 of 2006 before this Court, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court also held the same view and dismissed the writ petition. It is the said order, which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/management would submit that inasmuch as the Private Colleges Act has been given assent by the President of India and in view of Section 52 of the said Act, the same will have overriding effect and thus, the I.D. Act has got no application to the appellant/management. He would refer to Article 254 of the Constitution of India to say that the I.D. Act, to the extent it is repugnant to the Private Colleges Act, is inapplicable as the State Act shall prevail in the State of Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel would further submit that there are certain safeguards provided for the non-teaching staff under the Private Colleges Act and since the very object of the Act itself is to regulate the service conditions of the staff of Private Colleges, the same will take care of the interest of the non teaching Staff also. Therefore, I.D. Act is not applicable as there is repugnancy between these two enactments; it is argued.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that absolutely there is no repugnancy between the two enactments and so, Article 254 of the Constitution of the India has got no role to play in the given situation. He would further submit that of course it is true that there are provisions to safeguard, the interest of non-teaching staff under the Private Colleges Act itself, still the same would not debar the aggrieved to invoke the provisions of the I.D. Act and to safeguard his interest as provided in the said Act. He would further submit that though both the Acts are applicable to the non-teaching staff working in private Colleges, since there is no repugnancy between these two Acts, there is a choice vested with the aggrieved employee either to work out his remedy under the State Act or under the Central Act. In the case on hand, according to the learned counsel, the second respondent has chosen to go before the Labour Court under the I.D. Act and he has not at all approached the authorities u