DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, SURAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Delhi Public School, Surat has approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.3347 of 2013 with two fold grievances. The first grievance is with regard to the action of the appropriate Government of making Reference to the Industrial Tribunal on 20.07.2012, in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Annexure-A to this petition). The same is registered as Reference (IT) No.51 of 2012 with the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, and the Tribunal is ceased of it. The second grievance is that, in the said proceedings, on 08.03.2013, the Tribunal granted interim protection to the members of the respondent Union ('workmen' for short), whose cause is sought to be espoused in the proceedings in question. During pendency of this petition, in due compliance of the order of this Court dated 01.04.2013, the Tribunal passed further order on 04.04.2013 continuing/ granting interim protection to the workmen, which is also challenged by amending the petition.

(2.) Mr.Manish R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate for the petitioner School Management, has contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the school management and members of the respondent Union, and therefore the Reference itself is incompetent and therefore the action of the appropriate Government of referring the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal is bad in the eyes of law and therefore this Court may set aside the same. In support of this contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of this Court

(3.) Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate for Nanavati Associates for Shrinath Travels has addressed the Court in two capacities. Firstly, Shrinath Travels is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.6839 of 2013 wherein it has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 04.04.2013. Shrinath Travels was also joined as party respondent no.5 by the Delhi Public School in its petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.3347 of 2013. Mr. Joshi has supported the case of the petitioner school management. Mr.Joshi, learned senior advocate has contended that, over and above the arguments, which are advanced by Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned advocate for the school to assail the order dated 04.04.2013, it is the further grievance of the Shrinath Travels that without hearing it, the order could not have been passed by the Tribunal. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat v. Conciliation Officer and Ors., 2002 2 GLH 253. It is further contended that, in exercise of powers under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to what extent relief could have been granted at this stage, is also an issue, which Court may consider. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi further contended that what is granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.04.2013 is impermissible in view of the decision of this Court in case of Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. Indian Oil Corporation, 2005 3 GLH 85. It is contended that the impugned order dated 04.04.2013 be set aside.