THE CHAIRMAN, KARMAVEER KAKASAHEB WAGH EDUCATION SOCIETY AND RECTOR, GURUKUL BOYS AND GIRLS HOSTEL Vs. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION, THROUGH THEIR SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chairman, Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Rector, Gurukul Boys and Girls Hostel R/o Bhausaheb Nagar, Taluka: Niphad, District Nashik have filed this Revision Application U/s. 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 against the order of the Ld. Labour Judge on preliminary issue in Complaint (ULP) No. 162/1993. The Revision Applicants have contended in substance that while passing the order the Ld. Labour Judge failed to take into consideration that it was incumbent part of the Complainant to prove that the hostel is separate entity having separate management; that the Lower Court failed to consider brochure of the Gurukul filed by the Applicants, in its proper perspective; that the Lower Court did not consider the testimony of the Rector -Shri S.S. Dhavale that the Principal of the Vidyabhavan is the Chief Controller of the hostel under whose direction the staff of Main Hostel carry out their duties inclusive of the Rector; that the Lower Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the hostel being the part and parcel of the School, provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditional Services Regulations Act, 1977) are applicable the staff of the School to the hostel; that the Lower Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the boys and girls who are student in the Vidyabhavan are admitted in the hostel; that the Lower Court did not take into consideration that the complaint filed by the Union before the Industrial Court bearing No. 94/93 had alleged certain unfair labour practices committed by the Principal of the Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Vidyabhavan Shri Saiyyad, in their para 3(c); that the Lower Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private School Regulation Act, 1977 and Maharashtra Private Schools Rules 1981 herein there are various provisions made for attendants, peons, watchmen, mazdoors, mali, field man in proper perspective, that the Lower Court did not interpret definition of School as given in the MEPS Act; that the Lower Court ought to have rejected the complaint as it was not filed by the President or Vice -President who had the authority under the Constitution.

(2.) WHEN this revision came up for hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Applicants submitted that Union has no locus -standi and he further stated that the union itself cannot be organized in the educational society scheduled attached to the Constitution does not provide to the same. He has also submitted that the copy of the constitution furnished to him has some discrepancies in the Schedule which is not an authentic copy of the Constitution be furnished to him.