PRAKASH SHANKARRAO AHER Vs. AMRAVATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Petitions are directed to be heard together. The question involved is whether the employer Amravati University has indulged in unfair labour practice by prescribing qualification as graduate for post of Assistant Superintendent on its establishment. ULPA Complaint No.203/1993 filed by the petitioners - employees in Writ Petition No.2828/1993 challenging the said stipulation has been dismissed by the Industrial Court on 7.10.1993. ULPA Complaint No.73/1993 filed by the respondent Employee in Writ Petition No.2824/2001, has been allowed by the Industrial Court on 12.1.2001. Those employees as also employer have challenged these orders in their respective Writ Petitions.

(2.) The petitioners-employees in Writ Petition No.2828/1993 aspired to be promoted as Assistant Superintendent, and as per qualification of graduate prescribed by the employer vide notification dated 29.4.1989, the complainants were aggrieved because they did not possess the said qualification. They relied upon the clauses in Standard Code which prescribed 3 years experience on Lower post for a employee to become eligible to claim promotion on next Class-III post. They contended that increase in educational qualification by notification dated 29.4.1989, was therefore beyond the powers of the Executive Council of the Employer and that constituted change in their service condition. The employees therefore, sought a direction to employer to promote them as per the mode and procedure prescribed in Standard Code. Their complaint was opposed by the employer Amravati University, which relied upon the powers given to the Executive Council under section 25[1][xxix] of the Amravati University Act, 1983 to contend that the Executive Council was competent to prescribe graduate as qualification and as such there was no question of any provision of Standard Code being violated in the matter. The employer therefore prayed for dismissal of the ULPA Complaints.

(3.) Vijay Joshi and Arun Joshi, filed applications for intervention in said ULPA Complaints. These persons are respondent nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.No. 2828/1993. They supported the action of University and prescription of graduate qualification by notification dated 29.4.1989. The learned member of the Industrial Court considered the controversy and found that the prescription of graduate qualification by notification dated 29.4.1989 was not repugnant to the provisions of Clause III of Chapter I of Standard Code and therefore was not liable to be declared as bad under section 87 of the Amravati University Act. It is found that there was no unfair labour practice under Item nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.