CHANDAN BAPURAO KARWADE Vs. RASHTRA SANT TUKDOJI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the original complainants are aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court thereby allowing the revision application preferred by the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court directing their reinstatement on the post held by them alongwith continuity in service.

(2.) The facts in brief are that it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.1-Society is running a technical workshop for physically handicapped persons. The petitioners came to be appointed on 18.04.1995 in the said workshop. The petitioner no.1 came to be appointed on the post of Accountant while the petitioner no.2 was appointed as an Instructor. The appointment of the petitioners was on probation for a period of one year. The period of probation was extended for a period of one year. Thereafter on 25.03.1996 their services were approved on permanent basis from 01.07.1996. On 23.09.1996 revised orders came to be issued by the District Social Welfare Officer in which it was stated that if the services of the petitioners were not found to be satisfactory they could be terminated after giving notice of one month. It was also stated that the services would be governed by the Special Code for Schools for handicapped persons (for short, 'the Special Code'). On 21.03.1997, the respondent no.1-Society terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from 30.04.1997. It was stated that since the petitioners did not render satisfactory services during the period of probation, their services were being terminated. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the said Act'). According to the petitioners, the orders of termination were illegal and hence they were entitled for reinstatement. The provisions of Item 1 of Schedule IV to the said Act were invoked. In the written statement as filed, the entitlement of the petitioners was denied. It was also pleaded that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the remedy available to the petitioners was under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act of 1977'). The Labour Court after considering the entire material on record held that the petitioners were entitled for necessary reliefs in view of the fact that the orders of termination were in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). After holding that the Labour Court had jurisdiction, the complaint was allowed and the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service came to be granted. The respondent nos.1 and 2 preferred revision application and the Industrial Court held that the petitioners had remedy under provisions of the Act of 1977 and therefore it was not permissible for the Labour Court to have exercised jurisdiction. The revision application was thus allowed and the complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Ms Kalpana K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the services of the petitioners were governed by the provisions of the Act of 1977. She submitted that both the petitioners were members of the non-teaching staff and even if their services were governed by the Special Code, the Institution in question was not a private school under provisions of Section 2(20) of the Act of 1977. Referring to various provisions of the Act of 1977, it was submitted that the Director of Social Welfare was not the supervisory Authority and therefore the school in question could not be treated as a private school. The Special Code under which the services of the petitioners were sought to be governed was not a statute and reference to Rule 72(1)(e) of the Special Code in the appointment order would not confer jurisdiction on the School Tribunal. Referring to the judgment of the Full Bench in Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal Versus Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatakya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal & Others, 2002 3 CurLR 351 it was submitted that unless the school in question is a private school within the meaning of Section 2(20) of the Act of 1977, the question of invoking jurisdiction of the School Tribunal would not arise. She further submitted that in Writ Petition No.999 of 2014 [Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha Versus Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar] decided on 06.08.2015, the respondent nos.1 and 2 had sought to raise a similar challenge that the workman therein was not governed by the provisions of the Act of 1947. Said contention was turned down and the adjudication under the Act of 1947 was upheld. Said jurisdictional aspect was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the said judgment was challenged.