PEOPLES WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. SECOND LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 3 to 9 had filed complaint under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act) against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 as also against the present respondents Nos. 2 and 10. It was the contention of the complainants before the Labour Court that the respondents before the Labour Court were engaged in unfair labour practice falling under Item No. 1 in Schedule IV of the Act. There are other consequential reliefs prayed for. An application for interim relief was also filed. The respondents before the Labour Court filed their reply and raised preliminary objection to the effect that in view of section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 the Court has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as remedy was provided under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. It is further submitted that the services of the non-teaching employees in the Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University were governed earlier by the Nagpur University Act and after its repeat, by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. . It was contended that as such the complainants could not have preferred the complaint under the M-R-T-U. and P. U. L. P. Act.

(2.) THE application for interim relief was taken up for hearing. The Labour Court in para 7 addressed itself to the question as to whether the provisions contained under the Maharashtra Universities Act bar the jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted under section 6 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. Relying on certain judgments the Labour Court held that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. In so far as merit is concerned, the Labour Court held that the services of the complainants were terminated in contravention of the principles of natural justice and as such the termination orders dated 29-8-1996 are illegal and improper. It was the contention of the petitioners herein that they have acted on the letter dated 22-5-1996 wherein the Deputy Director informed them that there were excess employees and salary grant would not be sanctioned by the Government and the responsibility would be that of the management. It may be mentioned that the services of the complainants were terminated on the ground that they have become surplus as per the norms prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22-2-1980. The Labour Court held that the petitioners had not proved that there is fall on the strength of the students for the academic season of 1996-97 and in the absence of proof it had to be held that the complainants had not become surplus as per the norms prescribed by Government Resolution dated 22-2-1980 and, therefore, directed the petitioners to continue the services of the complainants.

(3.) THE petitioners had issued notice dated 29th August, 1996 to the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 informing that the Joint Director, Higher Education, Nagpur, had disapproved the salary of 10 non-teaching employees appointed in excess. It is further pointed out that their appointment to the posts is illegal and that the management of the society had decided to terminate their services by giving one months prior notice and that their services will be terminated with effect from 30th September, 1996. The respondents Nos. 3 to 9 preferred the complaint on 12th September, 1996. The perior of one month would have expired on 30th September, 1996. Interim relief was grantee on 25-9-1996. The said order came to be challenged in this petition. On 2nd November, 1996 this Court issued Rule. However, interim relief was refused.