SANGAM EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. BHARTI HANSRAJ BORKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur, dated 6-6-1989 is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award unpaid salary to the respondent No. 1 for the period from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 because the said dispute could be only agitated before the School Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the order passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur impugned in the present writ petition is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) IN opposition to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is contended by the contesting respondent No. 1 that the claim of the unpaid salary for the period from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 could not have been made by the respondent No. 1 before the School Tribunal and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not barred.

(3.) TO appreciate the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, brief relevant facts may be adverted to first. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioners in Sangam Higher Primary School as a Clerk and her services were terminated w. e. f. 30-4-1983. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said termination before the School Tribunal at Nagpur and the School Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 challenging the termination order. After the appeal was dismissed by the School Tribunal on 27-7-1984 the respondent No. 1 filed a review application before the School Tribunal praying therein that she has not been paid the salary from 16-12-1982 to 30-4-1983 and, therefore necessary directions be issued to the petitioners. This review application was rejected by the School Tribunal vide its order dated 3-10-1984 observing that the appeal of the respondent No. 1 has already been dismissed and for back wages she should approach the Education Officer and if advised, file the civil suit since the matter did not lie in the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal. On rejection of the review application, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Nagpur and claimed her unpaid salary for the period from 1-4-1982 to 30-4-1983 amounting to Rs. 3,156. 50. The application was filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 33-C (2) on 14-11-1984. The petitioners contested the application mainly on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction since the matter has already been tried by the School Tribunal and therefore the application under section 33-C (2) deserves to be dismissed.