ADARSHA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. JAIPRAKASH RAMVILAS LOHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 162 of 1987, decided on 17.2.1993, whereby it is declared that the present petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short "MRTU & PULP Act"), by terminating services of the complainant and they were directed to desist from indulging in any unfair labour practice and to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service with continuity and back wages w.e.f. 15.6.1987, which order further came to be confirmed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, by order dated 10.5.1995, passed in Revision (ULP) No. 41 of 1993.

(2.) Admittedly, respondent No. 1 Jaiprakash Lohia was working as a peon in the school run by petitioner No. 1 of which petitioner No. 2 was Headmaster. As stated by the Labour Court in para 2 of its judgment, respondent No. 1 claimed to have appointed as a peon in the school on 5.10.1984 for academic year 198485. From 9.10.1984 onwards he continuously worked till 15.6.1987. On 15.6.1987 he was orally terminated. There was no compliance of section 25F or 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "I.D. Act). The petitioners have retained employees junior to respondent No. 1 in the service and therefore it is alleged that there was unfair labour practice committed under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act. At the same time it is also alleged that the services of respondent No. 1 were not terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees' of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (for short "M.E.P.S. Act"). No notice was given. No domestic enquiry was held. It is also alleged that the petitioners violated sections 4, 5 and Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Act and rules thereunder. Therefore he has asked for declaration that the petitioners indulged in unfair labour practice and for reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages.

(3.) The basic question arises whether the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, when separate machinery is provided under the M.E.P.S. Act. Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Actis as follows: