SALVATION ARMY Vs. SUNIL J INGLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Salvation Army is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The object of the Trust is to provide free facilities to the poor, needy and under privileged in a hundred and nine countries all over the world. In Mumbai the petitioner conducts a hostel for the visually impaired, a home for the aged, a home for orphaned children, a free feeding center, a center for the physically challenged a school for the under privileged and economically backward children and a general hospital. In the petition it has been averred that the position of officership' in the Salvation Army is offered to those who are Salvationists i. e members of the Salvation Army Church. This relationship expresses a spiritual desire of a person who wishes to dedicate his life to the service of God and mankind in the ranks of the Salvation Army. The relationship is purely voluntary in the sense that the officership can be terminated without any restraint. It has been stated that an undertaking is taken from an officer to the effect that there is no contract of service or employment nor any legal relationship between him and the Salvation Army.

(2.) The respondent was an officer in the Salvation Army and his services were terminated on 25th June, 2001. Conciliation proceedings took place before the Deputy Commissioner of labour and a reference to adjudication was made after the conciliation proceedings ended in failure. The roznama of the proceedings before the Labour Court shows that the reference, together with the conciliation papers, was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of labour on 11th December, 2001. Notice was issued to the respondent to file his statement of claim. On 6th March, 2002, the petitioner was represented by an official before the Labour Court. The matter was adjourned for the filing of the written statement to 27th March, 2002. On 27th March, 2002 the respondents was present. The petitioner filed the authority at Exh. C-3 of its advocate. A preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was taken on that day. On the next date of hearing which was 10th April, 2002 the respondents was present and he filed an objection questioning the entitlement of the petitioner to be represented by an advocate in the proceedings. The objection was heard by the Labour Court and was allowed by the impugned order dated 24th April, 2002.

(3.) While admitting this petition on 24th June, 2002 and granting a stay of proceedings before the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge observed prima facie that the Labour Court had not followed the judgment of this Court in (T. K. Verghese v. Nichimen Corporation) , 2001 (4) Bom. C. R. (O,o. C. J. ) 168 : 2001 (90) F. L. R. 91.