ARJUNBHAI AMRITBHAI NAIK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) The brief facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined services of the respondent no. 2 in the month of January, 1987 as a Peon. For the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, a chargesheet was served upon him and after conducting the enquiry ex parte, the respondent no. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner on 22nd April, 1994. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said Order of termination, the petitioner herein has raised an industrial dispute under Section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) During the course of hearing before the Respondent No. 1, the respective parties have filed their objections and respondent no. 2 has mainly contended before the respondent no. 1 that such an industrial dispute cannot be entertained as petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy available before the Education Tribunal, and on earlier two occasions, the petitioner had already availed such a remedy, and therefore, the Reference should not be made to the Labour Court for adjudication. The second contention was made that the respondent no. 2 being a Trust running an Education Institution, it is not an `Industry' within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, `the Act']. After considering the respective submissions, the respondent no. 1 had decided that one fact that the petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy before the Industrial Tribunal and on two occasions, the petitioner had already approached the Education Tribunal, and therefore, due to availability of alternative efficacious remedy before the Education Tribunal, the said complaint filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that this complaint cannot be entertained by the respondent no. 1 and it is also not found fit to be referred to for adjudication to the Labour Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has once again approached the respondent no. 1 by giving application dated 17th December, 1994 to review his own order. The said review application was also not considered by the respondent no. 1. Hence, the present writ petition.